iiiiilB S^^^ 



E341 
.L89 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDD5Dfia33A # 






.^^'\- 



^^-^^^ 



.•* aO 





.'^V... 



:'V^ **4SI^% -^^^ A^ 




♦ V 



v^ .-I 











■ \.^' 



/\ 









^S^ 

^^^ -♦ 

















0* r^^s^^i'. "o>- .j^i"^^^* "'^o 







'^0^ 



^^-n^. 



bV^ 



%/ 












.^^"^. 



9^"-. 






0^ oo"'. 



,4o^ ...i^^j^/ ^0^ -^^^>; ^^o^ 



^.> .h^' -^o -.'^-,* ,0 














v • 










♦ AT ^ 















,. ^^'% ^: 














v-o^ 



^/^"^^ •'>•'... . V'*^^'* <^^' 



K^^°^ 




'oK 

















V '*^rt?^* .<b^ 



<^°<. 



V 























\ %..-^'^' yj^i£% V.'i*" -'^siej*'. •e. ^«' .'. 



V » 1 * ° 






5^ '""^^ ^' 




'bv" 







.0^ 













;•* ^0 






.^\.v. 






' .^' 

















^ 

^ .: 





















-^v.^^^ 



■3^.. 



.<^ ^^ 

















-n^o^ 










^^•^c^. 






^.Z 



'/>^'\.^^^^^'^-.^' 










If>h 






INTERESTING POLITICAL DISCUSSION. 



THE DIFLOMATICK POLICY 

OF 

MR. MADISON UNVEILED. 



[S A SERIES OF ESSAYS CONT.' IMNG STRICTURES UPON THE I.ATE C0RRE5 
PONDENCE BETWEKN 

MR. SMITH AND MR. JACKSON. 



'* The truest courage is discovered by a bold exjio^-ition of yoxii- own faults. ...It 
is tile part of a vulgar iniud, to rail not only without but against Evidence." 

BY A~BOSTONIAN. 

XT is propoGed to examine, in a calm and dispassionate 
manner, without invective, and, as far as is practicable, wiihout undue 
prepossessions, the very interesting measures of Mr, Madison's fhort 
Administration— Our observations and arguments will be addressed 
to that enlightend portion of the community, who examine before 
they decide ; — who collect, combine and compare facts, before they 
draw inferences ; and who habitually keep their passions in some de- 
gree of subordination to their understandings. 

It will be seen by this introduction, that there are other classes of 
citizens to whom the following candid remarks, the result of close ex- 
amination and honest and sedulous enquiry, are in no degree address- 
ed: — Let all such men forbear to read what will only serve to con- 
firm their prejudices and inflame their passions — for no observatien 
is more correct than that where men have formed violent prepossess- 
ions upon slight or ho foundations, those prejudices are only imbit- 
tered by strong and forcible arguments directed against such favou- 
rite opinions. — Those, therefore, who believe that our Administra- 
tion is always in the right, and Great Britain always in the wrong ; 
those who consider it a proof of hatred to one's own Country to shew 
that the existing and temporary rulers of it are hurrying it to its 
ruin ; — and especially those who entertain the ungenerous and un- 
manly sentiment that every man who examines with Candor the con- 
duct of a Foreign Nation, or of its Ministers; is either a partisan or a 



-5^ 



2 



pensioner of such nation ; had better shut theh- eyes to these essay:-, 
at the very outset — for they will only tend to inflame their resent- 
ments by H firm and lesoluie exposu e ot their errors. 

There are some, however, who are neither so candid or so enlight- 
ened as m be entirely r.pe.i to conviction, nnd yet not so pi ejudiceil as 
to be proof aj!;ainst its force — who haij learned from sad experience to 
distrust the sincerity of Mr. Jctfers<>n, aaJ were therefore cai;'able of 
di»r.ussing with closeness the nature of his measures : -Yet these same 
persons deem it unfair to examine, with ihc same degree of su picion, 
the conduct of Mr. Madison. 

A charitable sentiment towards this Gentleman has acquired a 
wonderful infl ence, owing principally to the undeserved parse in- 
cautiously bestowed upon a measure little un ierstood, and which, 
when thoroughly examined, will be found to me- it a high degree of 
censure. The adjustment wit.) G Britain was a measure so gratify- 
ing to all the true lovers ot their country, and of its peace, that v\ith- 
out reflection, they wer? willing to buiy al! past recollection o\ Mr. 
Madison's conduct, and to believe that a statesman who hud ^rown 
hoary in the cultivation of deep antipathies to llreat Britain, wh • had 
staked his literary reputacion (dearer to an author than Country or 
life) in favor cf principles which rendered a sincere accommodation 
absolutely hopeless, had, by a sort of miracle, been converted by a 
feeble, diplomalick s.ipling of Great Britain, into a sincere friend 
to an honorable accommodation. 

It was openly said that Mr. Madison always had been at heart a 
Federalist: — that^i? had never pledged himieiflo the system of eter- 
nal hatred to England which formed the .::iost marked feature in the 
policy of his predecessor; — that the part which he had borne under 
that administration was only subordinate and iheatrica! ; and that no 
opinion could be formed from that cause of his future measures. - 

Disgraceful as such a supposition was to his character, mean as 
must his conduct have been thus to have played the hypocrite or the 
slave, and false as his measures now prove this sentiment to have been ; 
yet these opinions gained proselytes — and there have been moments 
in which Mr. Madison, for an act which will eventually destroy his 
reputation, might have obtained the suffrages of the degraded feder- 
alists. 

Though the counteraction will eventually be as strong as the de- 
ception was complete, and deep indignation will succeed to momen- 
tary applause ; yet, at //;/'/ 7}ioment, the difficulties of a public k writer 
are materially increased. 

Adapted to this state of things must be our course of procedure. — 
The Political History of Mr. Madison will be first and briefly dis- 
cussed, in order to shew us v.'hat we had a right to expect of him, 
and to prove that hatred to Great Britain and attachment to French 
politicks were deeply rooted in his own character totally independent 
of his connection with Mr. Jefferson. 



3 . . /ri 

We shall then proceed to consider the arrangement with Mr. Er- 
skine ; — in which we shall examine the proofs of the imbecility of 
that young gentleman — th extraordinary course which was adopted 
of setting upon him all our ministers separately — the errors into 
which he was led and which produced the violation of his orders ; — 
The measures the administration adopted to pi event Great Britain 
from acceding to t!:e arrangement — the proofs that it was never ^-.v- 
pected the arrangement would b-e agreed to, and of course the evidence 
it affords of insincerity - the appointment of Mr. J. Q^ Adams to 
the Court of one of the allies of Bonaparte and enemies or Great Bri- 
tain, before the rejifciiof! of the arrangement was known, wtth a view 
as it will turn out, to form a coalition against Great Biitain, or to 
combine in the means of resistance ; a measure calculated to excite 
her jealousy, and to gratify Bonaparte — Under this head we shall no- 
tice also the conduct of '^cngress at ihe June session, and shew that it 
was a violation ol the implied barirain with Mr. Erskine, and a de» 
parture ft'>m Mr. Madison's petsonal assurances :o that Gentleman ; 
and, lastly, the late couise of Negociation with France, which proves 
that the arrangement with I'iskine was explained to Bonaparte as a 
measure whfch must fail, and that it was inten^ied to widen the breach 
between us and England ; — In this light Bonaparte received and 
approved of it. 

Having taken this view of the arrangement with Erskine, we shall 
say a few words about the rejection of it by Great Britain, and the 
motives and grounds of that measure. 

V^ e shall then proceed to discuss the late negociation with Mr. 
Jackson. In the progress of this discussion, we shall first consider the 
foundation of the charge against Mr. Jackson of having insulted our 
Government : — A'e shall endeavour to shew» that there has been no 
intimation on his part of any want oi veracity in our administration — 
that upon the point on which the contradiction has been aliedged to 
have existed no discordance whatever can be perceived — that he has 
not advanced anv thing which is not admitted on the pai t of our ad- 
ministration ; and that, S'.. far from having aggravated his supposed 
insult, he purposely and delcately abstained in his Isst letter from 
repeating tlie allegation which was pretended to be offensive. 

We shad then proceed to analyze the whole correspondence, and 
to shew that the charge of indecorum rests against Mr. £mith : — 
That his first letter to Air. Jackson was a departure from those esta- 
blished rule> of delicacy and decorum which invariable usage hus ren- 
dered indispensable— that misrepresentations of Mr. Jackson's pro- 
posals, and an offensive adherence to them after he had explained 
them are to be perceived thoughout the whole correspondence. That 
instead of Mr. Jackson's intimating in the most remote degree any 
thing which was denied by our Government, they on the contiary 
have, in a most explicit manner, not only questioned his veracity, 
but have directly intimated that he had been guilty of falsehood. 



, We shall then attempt to shew the rtal causes of the rupture of 
the Negotiation — That they are to be found in the very able and 
perspicuous manner in which Mr. Jsckson had apologized for his 
own government and had repelled tlie charges made against their 
sincerity — in tlie impossibility of continuing 3 negotiation in which 
every pretext for continued hostility was so perfect'y removed — and 
in the danger to which the admiiiistration was exposed of having 
their views completely and unanswei ably displayed. We are aware 
that in prc-ving theie propositions not by argument merely, but by 
quotations from the correspondence, we shall expose ourselves to the 
hasty censures of those rash politicians who, regardless of the /ji^/: and 
ultimate reputation of their coun ry, of that reputation which posteri- 
ty, uninfluenced by our momentaiy passions, wl!) give to us, will stig* 
matize the writer as the advocate of our enemies. 

We are aware that it is impossible to make the truth palatable, 
when the passions of our readers lead tliem to prefer deception; — 
bu- the duty of attempting to inform is not the less imperious because 
ic is painful and hazardous. Let the writer be sacrificed ; — let him be 
branded with all tlie epithets which inflamed and bigntted passions 
can invent : the truth, however will remain unchangeable, and the day 
will certainly arrive, too late perhaps for our safety, too late certainly 
for the vindication of the writer, in which all honest and enlightetiei 
men will concur in the maintenance of his opinions. This may be 
deemed vanity ; It deserves that censure, if to expect conviction from 
a cool and dispassionate display of facts, and an impartial course of 
reasoning is an indication of vanity. 

The confidence ftlt by the author in his opinions arises from a con- 
viction that he has thoroughly examined the late policy of our rul- 
ers; — that he has proceeded nofatther than he is supported by facts, 
the evidence of which he shall cite, and of which the publick may 
judge. He means to assume nothing but what he proves as he ad- 
vances ; and he begs the publick to withdraw their belief of his state- 
ments whenever tliey are unsupported by the evidence. On the other 
hand, he invites and chdllenges all who may dissent from his opinions, 
to controvert the facts he may statCj and the arguments he may de- 
duce from them. 

Happy will he be, if for the first time in moments of political ex- 
citement, the publick verdict shall be rendered in conformity to strict 
principles, and conceded evidence, uninfluenced by existing prejirdi- 
ces and unmanageable prepossessions. 

Having dismissed the subject of our negotiations with Great Bri- 
tain, he shall consider our despatches from France, and the manner in 
which they are submitted to the publick attention. He shall in- 
vite the most strensous supponeis of the Administration to defend 
this conduct cf our Government in relation to )irance consistently 
with even a moderate degree, not of Impartiality (that has long ceas- 
ed to exist) hut of common honesty and fairness. He shall then de- 
duce some strong argujnei>ts in support of his opinions of the insin* 



^^, /J? 



cere views of our Administration towards Great Britain, Irom tiie 
unexampled tameness and partiality of their conduct towards France. 



No. il. 



jMr. Madison's character before lie xscas chctul 
President. 

BEFORE we endeavor to display to our readers one of the deep- 
est, and most extraordinary pelitical negotiations which our annals 
have recorded, a negotiation which establishes beyond a doubt a de- 
termination either to quarrel with Great Britain or to prevent a peace 
with her on ajiy terms ; it will be useful to consider whether we had 
a right to expect such conduct in Mr. Madison — whecher it comports 
with, or is opposed to former views of liis character. — Fhis is ex- 
tremely important both to him, and to us in forming a cerrect judg- 
ment of his measures — For if Mr. Madison has heretofore manifested 
an impartial and unbiassed disposition towards the two great Bellige- 
rents — if he has discovered a sincere v/ish to preserve a good under- 
standing with Great Britain, and a proper spirit of indignation at the 
injuries of France, it would require pretty strong evidence befoie we 
could believe him capable of forming so deliberate a plan to fore;; 
the former into an open rupture, — If on the other hand, his late con- 
duct shall appear to be perfectly consistent with xhz former history 
of his life — if a state of ill humour and ill will towards Great Btitain 
shall appear to have been the prevailing temperament of his n;ind, 
and especially if it shall turn out that he has acquired his ii fluence 
with his own party, chiefly by fostering such prejudices, surely it will 
not be deemed uncharitable to consider the unwearied pains which 
have been taken to produce an irreconcilable rupture, as resulting 
from a fixed and premeditated pUn. 

Mr. Madison came into Congress in the year T778 — Our open alli- 
ance with France h;id just then taken place — The views, the ambitious 
and interested views which led the Cabinet of Versailles to adopt our 
cause, and which were so frankly acknowledged in Mr. Genet's in- 
structions, were even a: that early period discovered by the Delegates 
from the Eastern States. It was soon perceived that our indepen- 
dence was one of the last objects which entered into the policy of 
France — A separation from Great Britain accompanied by such 
weakness on our part as should render us dependent ori herself was 
the extent of her good will towards us. 

It would astonish* those, who are ignorant of the intriguing policy 
of France to be informed, what was the fact, that this ally so full of 
professions, moved every wheel in the political n-i\chine to prevent 
our growth, and to check our solid independence. — To this end, she 



early fomeiiteJ a. party in Congress—To this end she even intrigued 
with our common enemy — To this end she endeavoured to diminish 
our teriitnrial claims — I'o this end she opposed the cession of the 
Fisheries to us -To this end in short she insisted that even our Inde- 
pendence should not be a sine qua non of a treaty. — But the most 
extraordinary part of this history is, that men could be found in our 
own councils ready to co-operaie in the French views. It is however 
a fact, thai there existed in Congress a Gallican and an Anti-Gallican 
interest — that the New England Delegates were without an excep- 
tion, of the latter description, and that Mr. Madison and a formida- 
ble party belonged to the former — We do not mean to intimate ac- 
tual corruption to which it is believed he was always superiour, but 
strong prepossessions — It is a fact ihat our ministers were instructed 
wfiUoiv the -'dvic: of Mom. De f^ergcnnes in relation to a peace— that 
it was even debated whether the fisheries should be made an indispen- 
sable condition — and that an attempt was maie to censure Mr. 
Adams and Mr. Jay, for the honourable peace which in spite of 
French intrigues they had effected. 

Thus early and deeply seated in the marrow, were Mr. Madison's 
Gallick prejudices, and it surely cannot excue surprize that a man 
who in 1779 and 1780, could pause between the interests of the 
United Stares and the wishes of France, should in 1808 and 1809 
elide over, nay almost gloss over the unexampled outrages of the 
same nation. 

" With France, (says this Guardian of our rights when communi- 
cating to Congress the late infufferable letter of Champagny indicat- 
ing his Majesty's unalterable will) with France the other belligerent, 
the posture or our affairs does not correspond with the measures taken 
on the part of the I uited ^tales co effecr. a favourable change." 

But whether this is owing to accident, to iht failure of our despatches^ 
or to the insolent pretensions of France our Lxecuiive gives no inti-_ 

maiioa Why ? Because every man in the nation reads the speech of 

the President, while a comparatively small part will ever see the in- 
sulting letter of Mr. Champagny. 

Such are the two extremes of Mr. Madison's political life — such 
was he in 779— such we find him in 1809. — Let us now see how the 
intrrmediate series has been filled up. It is immaterial to the present 
discussior^to consider his union with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jay in 
procuring the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and his subse- 
quent desertion of the Federal Cause as soon as that Constitution went 
into operatior.— It is only with regard to his opinions as to our fo- 
reign relations, that the history of Mr. Madison is important in the 
present discussion. « • • 

Upon the breaking out of the war between Great Britam and 
France, new and important duties and relations took place in the po- 
licy of the United States. General Washington resolved upon an 
Impartial Neutrality.— The party to which Mr. Madison has from 
that moment attached Iiis fortunes, condemned that NeutTalitv,— 



/i-^ 



Mr. Madison was one of the most strenuous cpposers of It, and he 
wrote a series of political speculations to render that measure un- 
popular — vVhen our difficulties with Great Britain assumed a seri- 
ous aspect, Mr. Madison was among the foremost to widen the 
breach, and to censure the s'eps adopted by Washington to restore a 
friendly intercourse between us and Great Britain. — He brought for- 
ward in the House of Representatives certain resolutions to defeat the 
principal objects of the President, and we owe to the eloquence of 
Mr Ames, and to the vigorous stand which the Inhabitants of Bos- 
ton and of New- England genei ally, made to Mr. Madison's proposi- 
tions, the preservation ot our country from the horrors of war, and 
the unexampled blessings which have flowed from the prudent and 
wise conduct of our IllUilrious President. 

In this most critical period of uur National affairs, we find Mr. 
Madison devoted to the policy of France, courting a contest with 
Great f-ritain, and ready to hazard our best Interests for the sake of 
his personal prepossessions — What reason have we to expect, that a 
man who was in favour of an alliance with France in i 794, when v;e 
were so little able to engage in a contest with any nation, should not 
at this moment entertain the same views when our own strength is so 
materially improved, and when his old, his long continued fovorites 
the French, increased beyond example in their power, are upon the 
point of accomplishing their views of universal dominion ? 

Mr. Madison, thwarted in his project ofembarkin,; the United 
St^'cs in the contest in favour of France, quitted the GovernnieM in 
disgust, not to retire as a private citizen to submit to measures which 
he ^oi;id not controul, but to fan the embeis of civil dissension in his 
native state. 

V. e next find him in the legislature of Virginia, opposing the mea- 
suivs of Mr, Adams, and as Chairinan of a Committee organizing 'he 
whole force of that Prouj and Injpeiial ^;tare against the i-neasures, 
the constitutional measutes =.f Congtess. — In this conduct also we 
discern hi;. /vre/^/.' prepossessions Uur country was then threatened 
wi'h a war with ir.nce — ^ o avoid the dangers to which we were 
ex, osed by French Emissaries, the Alien and Seditior laws were 
pasbcc — : he whole scope ard object of those laws was to rid our 
Nation of a set of Spies, with whom :he intriguing policy of France 
fills every country she w bhes- to subdue. A'r Madison true to bis 
fiisi prejudices rpposed these laws, though he well knew they were 
to overall- only upon thr pubiick enemies of our Country. 

he success of the machinations ot Mr Madison and his party is 
too vtll known, i he Gallick Interest triumphed over the Interests 
o\ t''e . merican people, and Mr. iv.adison for the last eight years has 
been enjoying the fruits of thirty years most assiduous labours. 

i he history of Mr. Jefferson's administration is one continued tis- 
sue of devotion to France and of hostility to Britain; peifectly in- 
deed correspondent to the professions and to the means by which they 
acquired power, but as certainly destructive of the best interests of 



IGd 



8 



the United States as well as subversive of the honest principles of an 
Impartial Neutr lity. 

Is Mr. Madison accountable as Sscretary of State for this policy ? 
Is he to be presumed a partaker in ir ? 

Mr. Madison is a man independent in his circumstances— If he 
was not, no apology can be made for any man who would not only 
consent to hold an office under an administration which was pursuing 
measures opposed to his sentiments, but who would submit to be 
the immediate organ of such measures. >ir. Pvtadison not content 
with his official duties, has \'olunteered in defence of tht measnies of 
Mr. Jefferson, and it will eventually appear that he was not the dupe 
or the obedient slave of Mr. Jefferson, but the principal Instigator 
of those measures which without the slightest occasion have brought 
us to our present deplorable cendltion. 

Such has been Mr. Madison. What he u we shall proceed to shew — 
but before I quit this subject, I must beg to be indulged in one or 
two remarks. 

The great men in every democratick Government, but more especl« 
ally in our own, however they may appear to lead must in cScct foHo'w 
the popular Impulse.— It was said by some indiscreet persons that 
Mr. Macilson might count on the support of the Federalists, and of a 
portion of /;/■/ o<vjn party if he should adopt a truly honest and im- 
partial policy. This is a mistake, and Mr. Madison knows better. — 
The history of M'Kean and of Burr, and of Randolph, shews that 
there is no sort of compromise with demi^cracy. They sacrifice with- 
out a struggle an old friend as they adopt a new one, like John Q_^ 
Adams, or if I may be al owed to name him in ihe same line, Willi- 
am Gray.— Democratick chiefs must fellow, not dictate the mea- 
sures of their dependents. 

This cannot be more fully exemplified than in the late arragement 
with Mr. trskine. Was it an honest one ? Was it serious ? Why then 
not praised by the democrats? Why a studied and costive silence? 
Why a continuation of the abuse against Great Britain ? When known 
to be rejected, why such manifest delight? Why the appearance of 
a triumph : Why the exultation as if the United States had gained 
a battle ? 

This subject I sliall again recur to with more distinct application. 



No. HI. 



Mr. Ersxjxe's Arrangement considered ia Us Origin, 
Proinrcss and Issue. 

DIFFICULT as the path to permanent peace and reconciliation 
10 Great Britain, appeared to be with such a temper as that of our 



/hi 

administration, before Mr. Erskine's arrangement, that unfortunate'' 
measure has not onlv superadded new embarrassments, but our min- 
isters appear to be resolved to substitute it as a principal and an in- 
surmountable obstacle. — They not only take credit to themselves for 
the proof which they pretend that measure afforded of their desire to 
conciliate Great Britain — but they adduce the rejection of that agree- 
ment as evidence, not merely of insincerity, but of perfidy. — In their 
late discussions with Mr. Jackson, abandoning their cautious policy, 
and secure as they thought themselves in the confidence of the people, 
whom they conceived they had managed, they adopted a high and 
offensive tone, ill calculated to restore a friendly intercourse — tliey 
repeated and persisted in direct insinuations of a dishonourable breach 
of faith, and declared that Great Britain still persevered insolent and 
inadmissible pretensions, notwithstanding the British envoy as repeat- 
edly, in language the most unequivocal, denied that he v/as directed 
to persevere in any such pretensions. 

Since then, in place of the dispute about the orders in Council, the 
questions of Impressment, of the Colonial trade, and of the Chesa- 
peake, a new cause of contest has been conjured up, to which a still 
more serious air is attempted to be given. Those of us who are 
opposed to a war, unless it be necessary for our honour, and who 
think it possible that a set of men who have heretofore deceived us, 
may deceive us again, will think it prudent to examine to the very 
foundation, the late arrangement with Mr. Erskine, and see, whether 
it affords any additional just ground for dissatisfaction with Great 
Britain, and whether it does not oifer new reasons to doubt the sin- 
cerity of our government. 

Our ministers appear to place great reliance on the testimony of 
Mr. Erskine, who having once deceived them, and having betrayed 
an uncommon share of weakness, one would think they would deem 
little deserving of confidence. For my part, I consider this testimony 
very little relevant to the questions in dispute, unksi as it would seem 
our Administration mean to rely on tzvo grounds^ so affrontive to the 
British Cabinet, as to shut the door forever to Negociation. Those 
points are, i st. That Mr. Canning fabricated or voluntarily misrep- 
resented the three proposals which in his letter of the 23d of January, 
1809, he states, he understood were either proposed by or were ac- 
ceptable to our Cabinet — and, 2dly. That although Mr. Jackson, in 
.behalf of the British ministry, solemnly, on the honour of his sove- 
reign, declares that i/:ere were no other Instructions on this subject thau 
those contained in the letter of Mr. Canning of January 23d, yet that 
in fact other Instructions did exist. 

I repeat, and I beg the public to notice it, and weigh the force of 
the remark, that it would seem that the object and the only object of 
publishing Mr. Erskine's explanatory letters is to give rise to two 
opinions : — That Mr. Canning voluntarily misrepresented the dis- 
patches of Mr. Erskine as to the three conditioi,s ; and that Mr. 
2 



Enskine had other Instructions than those which the British goverc- 
ment declare were the only ones. 

Now if a war is intended, and is considered desirable or inevitable, 
it may not be indecent in our government to make such suggestions ; 
but if not, I can see no motive in publishing Mr. Erskine's letters, as 
they have no possible tendency but to excite unjust suspicions of the 
integrity of the British Cabinet. 

Since, however, some importance is thus attached to the letters of 
Mr. Erskine,* it will be well to consider his situation and the weight 
to which his testimony is entitled. — I say nothing at present of die 
manner in which these letters were obtained, nor of the suggestion in 
one of the Southern papers that they were first submitted to our 
ministers for their approbation ; but I do maintain that Mr. Erskine's 
o'ivn Interest, owing to his misconduct, has become identified with the 
Interest of our Cabinet — that he is a party, and not a witness — 
he is a culprit convicted and punished by his own government — whose 
character as a statesman is completely destroyed in Great Britain, 
and whose only hope is to reconcile himself to the opposition in his 
own country and the American Government and People, to whom 
he is attached by the ties of property and marriage. 

Mr. Erskine had represented to his own Government that our 
Administration were ready to accede to certain propositions. — When 
the authority arrived to close with those proposals, and when he found 
that the parties with whom he had treated denied or shrunk from the 
supposed agreement, how natural was it to endeavour to justify him- 
self by qualifying the language he had used to his own Government 
especially after it was ascertained that he had nothing further to hope 
from them, and might calculate on some portion of retpect from our 
country, and from the minority in his own. 

There was another part of his negociatiou which equally tempted 
him to a representation favourable to the view^s of our Administra- 
tion.— The violation of the letter and spirit of the Instructions of Mr. 
Canning of the 23d of January, was so glaring as to leave no hope 
of justification either to him or our ministers. — The only possible 
excuse was to suggest that there were other Instructions — His remarks 
on this head are vague and inexplicit. — Other Instructions he undoubt- 
edly had, previously to this arrangement, because the subjects had 
been often discussed, and had been pending for several years — but all 
of them had been merged and buried in the orders of January 23d, 
which alone, as the British government assure us, contained the whole 
authority on this particular topick. 

Let distempered Jealousy exert its utmost powers, it can never 
pertuade an impartial man, that Great Britain or any other nation, 
in the act of disgracing a minister, would dare to alledge, that he had 
violated his instructions, and that a particular letter contained the 
nvhole of them, when the disgraced minister, supported by powerful 
friends, was possessed of evidence to refute the charge. If such a mon- 
jscVi as Bonaparte, Vho silences the voice of complaint by confinemen»: 
• Sec/Note to No. 4. 



11 



/C^-b 



:n the Temple or the Castle of St. Murgaiita, could adopt such a 
course, the thing would be impracticable in Great Britain asjainst a 
man of Noble Extraction — the son of a distini^^nished Peer, of a ci-de- 
vant Chancellor — and the most eloquent man in the kingdom. 

One other circumstance goes very much against the weight of Mr. 
Erskine's statements. As soon as the disavowal of his arrangement 
was known, an apology for him, feeble and defective enough tq be 
sure, was published in the Gazette of the United States. It was soon 
understood, alledged, and never contradicted, to have been written 
by him. In that apology, full of censure against his own govern- 
ment, he does not pretend that he had any other IiniruLttons., but he 
concludes with a threat, that shews he already conceived his own 
interest to be opposed to that of liis government — The inti.mation is, 
that he had settled the difticultics with this country, and that thnse^ 
meaning his own masters, the British ministers, must look to it, who 
had stirred up a hornet's nest about their ears by disavowing his 
agreement. Such were his feelings before our government called 
upon him for his aid in exciting the publick resentment againit his 
own country. If irom these causes he was biassed in his statement, 
he would not be the first man who has done an unwise thing to prove 
himsflt a prophd. 

Having made these preliminary remarks, let us now see how the 
proposal for the withdrawing our Non-intercourse I^aws and the 
British Orders originated, it wil Inot be denied, that only Six Months 
previous to this event. Great Britain had peremptorily refused -an 
offer made by Mr. Pinkney precisely like the agreement of Mr. Ers- 
kine. — It will not be denied, that the first auihority, and a.^ the British 
ministry contend, the only authority, ever given to Mr. Erskine on 
this subject, was contained in the letter of the 23d of .January, which 
comprised three conditions, 1st. That v.'e shoidd continue our laws 
of Non Intercourse against France and her allies. — 2dly. That we 
would relinquish such part of the Colonial Trade as we did not enjoy 
in time of peace. — 3d. That we shoula by treaty permit the British 
ships (to do what they would have a right to do without) to capture 
all our ships contravening this agreement. It will not be denied, that 
neither of these conditions was complied with in the arrangement, and 
if any other Nation had been concerned but Great Britain, and espe- 
cially if we ourselves were (in pari casu) similarly situated, we should 
entertain no doubt of the right to reject the convention — But not 
content with abusing Great Britain for the exercise of a right rendered 
sacred by immemorial usage, and still more sacred by reason and 
justice, an attempt is made to convert these very conditions, these 
very Instructions, into a new offence. — It is said they are inadmissi- 
ble : — It is said they are insolent — that they are an aggravation of 
previous injury. — This might pass if confined to those base journals 
who have infringed the sacred immunities of a publick minister, but- 
they have also found their way into the recesses of the Cabinet. 



N(uv I ■will meet the whole dlplomatick host on this point witk 
confidence. — Those Tnbtructions convey no insult, considering the 
circumstances under which they were framed — They w^cre inserted in 
a solemn letter from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which he was 
permitted to shew in extenso. It could not at that time certainly be 
foreseen that Erskine would break his Instructions, that a treaty 
would be formed, and that Great-Britain would be compelled to dis- 
avow it. — It was addressed to thei^fry man who is said to have written 
to Mr. Canning that our Ministers had agreed to two of the Condi- 
tions — It must have been the height of impudence and folly in Mr, 
Canning to have stated to Erskine that he so understood him, if he 
Jhad no authority for so saying — It was Erskine's duty, if he found 
Mr. Canning had misrepresented him, to have withheld the proposi- 
tions, and to have rectified the mistake. 

Grant, therefore, all that Erskine and all that our ministers with 
so much iophistry endeavour to explain. Grant, (which I do not 
admit) that Mr. Erskine misunderstood our ministers as to those 
conditions ; still Mr. Canning was really deceived. — It is impossible, 
it is against all human probability, that he would have written to 
Mr. Erskine " that he understood from him that two out of the three 
conditions were agreed to by our ministers," unless he verily believed 
it. There is an end then forever to the pretext of insult in these 
J)roposals. They were proper and respectful, because belie'ved to be 
our own. — As to the third condition, pronounced the most nffensme^ it 
is alledged to have been agreed or assented to by Mr. Plnkney, an(J 
we see no evidence to counteract or control this suggestion. 



No. IV. 



The Origin^ Progress and Issue of Mr. EjiSxiNL's Ar- 



WE have already shewn that this famous arrangement originated 
in several propositions stated by Mr. Erskine to be the result of cer- 
tain conferences with the members of our cabinet ; and that so far 
from being the cause of new ojcnce, these propositions must have been 
presumed by Mr. Canning to have been acceptable to our ministers. 
To disprove this point, the members of our Cabinet have assailed the 
discontented and disgraced minister, Mr. Erskine, and have induced 
him to make some explanatory concessions. These concessions, pub- 
lished by our Government in their own vindication, must, according 
to all fair rules of construction, be considered most strictly against 
themselves ; and we deduce from them most unequivocal proots, 
that Mr. Canning had a right to draw the inferences which he has 
acnounced. 



13 //,<- 

Mr. Erskine's letter of the 14th of August is brought forward as 
the apology of our Government, and as calculated to prove that Mr. 
Canning was not authorized to presume that our Government would 
accede to the three conditions stated in his lettei of instructions. The 
contrary inference may most fairly be drawn from Mr. Erskine's 
letter. His letter consists of two distinct parts : — ist. His statement 
of what he had actually communicated to his own Government ; and 
2d. His declaration of what were his own private impressions, when 
drawn out by the denial of our ministers. 

Upon the first condition, which imported that upon the repeal of 
the British Orders in Council, we would withdraw our Non-Inter- 
course as it respected Great Britain, and persevere in our Non Inter- 
course with France and her allies, Mr. Erskine states, that Mr. Mad- 
ison assured him that " the United States would at once side with 
that power against the other which might continue its aggressions." 

Upon being pressed nonv, after the affair, to explain himself he 
says, that he never considered this to be a preliminary condition, 
because he knew that the President had no such power without the 
concurrence of Congress. 

This, it must be remembered, is Mr. Erskine's private opinion,- 
:2fter the disavdival, and is not stated to have been made known to his 
Cabinet. This distinction of Mr. Erskine, sophistical and absurd 
enough to be sure, is the same which Mr. Erskine set up in his own 
defence in the Gazette of the United States, where he says, that he 
iouicl not have presumed that a British Minister was so ignorant of the 
American Constitution as to believe that the President l^.ad such a 
power. 

This very argument proves that he never stated this distinction to 
his own Government, but presumed that they would understand it 
themselves. The whole of this reasoning is however bottomed upon 
an error ; for as the President and Senate have a right to conclude 
Treaties, which ipso facto become the supreme law of the land, Con- 
gress are bound like all other subjects of this country, to carry them 
into execution. — This principle was settled in the case of Jay's treaty. 

Upon the second condition, Mr. Erskine stated to his Government 
that Mr, Gallatin said, " that it was the intention of the United States 
to abandon the attempt to carry on a trade with the Colonies of the 
belligerents in time of war, which was not allowed in time of peace ;'* 
and the reason he assigns is conclusive evidence, that he understood 
Mr. Gallatin rightly ; — for he adds, " that the United States would 
trust to their being permitted by France to carry on such trade in 
time of peace, as to entitle them to a continuance of it in time of 
war." 

This is too plain to require any explanation ; it includes the total 
cession of the colonial trade*. This is what Mr. Erskine stated to his 
Government, and on this express idea is Mr* Canning's second pro- 
posal founded* 



Four months after this, and after his disgrace, Mr. Erskine declares, 
ihat he understood by this, only the direct cohmial trade ; but this he 
<lid not state to Mr. Canning — and could Mr Canning divine it ? 
Might not, indeed did not Mr. Canning suppose, that as our trade 
■with the colonies of France was reduced by captures of the French 
iilands, and actual blockade, to almost nothing, that our Cabinet were 
ready to relinquish it ? 

Thus it is proved, that the propositions made in Mr. Canning's 
letter of the 23d of January, 1809, so far from being insolent, were 
in fact founded upon what he had a right to presume were principles 
to which our ministers had acceded ; and it is far from being proved 
that they did not give Mr. Erskine reason to believe that they did 
agree to them. 

We shall now proceed to prove that the arrangement entered Into 
with Mr. Erskine affords no proof of a wish on the part of our Cab- 
inet to adjust our differences with Great Britain ; but that it v/as 
rather expected that it would widen the breach. 

1st. There was good reason to believe, at the moment of the ar- 
rangement, that he had not only acted without full powers, but that 
be had violated his instructions. 

This point once established, and it being once conceded that our 
Government expected a disavowal, it is a proof of great insincerity, 
instead of a desire of preserving peace. 

No point can be more fully settled than that a mere letter of cre- 
dence, appointing a man a minister resident, or even plenipotentiary, 
does not of itself include the power to make a treaty — Hence we 
find that when ministers plenipotentiary have made treaties, they have 
exchanged their full powers with the persons appointed to treat with 
them, although they themselves may have been resident at the Court 
of the sovereign with wliom the treaty is made for several years. 

This principle acquired additional force, and if usage had not sanc- 
tioned it, the particular circumstances in which Mr. Madison stood, 
would have afforded an ample apology for demanding Mr. Erskine's 
powers. Mr. Madison is an officer with limited power. This fact 
foreign nations are supposed, and indeed obliged to know. He was 
not empowered to restore the Intercourse with Britain, except on the 
condition of his Britannick Majesty's having actually withdrawn his 
Orders in Council. He might, however, have considered hh Majesty's 
promise to withdraw them, on a day certain, as tantamount to an 
actual repeal ; — but in such case, he had a right, nay, he was in duty 
bound, to call for the power of the Minister. Wliy was it not done ; 
Because it was known, ive say, not to exist. — The delicacy in this 
case was truly ajfected. Great Britain could not have takeii offence 
at the demand of an authority, when that authority was indispensable 
to the exercise of Mr. Madison's power. - 

But the actual conditions of Mr. Erskine's instructions were knov/n ;' 
and it was known that the arrangement violated them. 



1^ 

Tills is in proof. ' / 

1st. By Mr. Erskine's letter of the 29th April, to his own goveni- 
xnent, in which he states, that he had discussed the three conditions 
verbatim et seriatim, that is, word for word, and gives the replies of 
our ministers, 

2d. By Mr. Smith's letter of the 19th of October last, in which 
he admits that the three conditions were known to him. And 

3dly By Mr. Erskine's explanatory letter, written at the request 
of our government, in which he says, " that in the discussions upon 
these conditions, he found no reason to believe, that any difficulties 
would occur in the accompliihment of the two former conditions, as 
far as it was in the power of the President of the United States to 
agree to the first, and consistently with the explanation which I had 
given of the last." 

Thus then it seems, the conditions were in fact kncnvn ; and if there 
existed publick reasons, arising from Mr. Madison's limited powers, to 
require an authority before he abrogated, by his fiat, an act of Con- 
gress, how much were these reasons increased, with how much more 
force they operated, when he was informed, that the British Minister 
was clogged witli certain conditions, not one of luhlch was conceded ? 
If prudence would before have required a full exhibition of powers, 
how much were these motives increased by this disclosvire of the 
expectations of the British Cabinet, and the certainty of their dis- 
content with the terms actually agreed upon ? 

But a nice metaphysical distinction is set up, rather calculated for 
the mob, than for the reasoning part of society, that the instructions 
of January 23d, from Mr. Canning, though known in substance, were 
not shewn in extenso ; and a species of jockeying law is introduced, 
that it was possible there might be provisional instructions of a lower 
tone. The whole evidence is now before the publick ; and it appears 
that the conditions were not merely the substance, they were the •wholi 
of Mr. Erskine's Instructions, and under the very limited authority 
of Mr. Madison it was his duty so to have presumed. 

But i shall perhaps be asked, what motive could Mr. Madison 
have, knowing he was thus restricted, and knowing he was liable to 
punishment for violating a law of Congress, to make a convention 
which he presumed would not be ratified ? 

I have one answer to make, which will be amply sufficient, though 
I can give twenty : — 

He knew that the party, on which alone he depended for support, 
would praise him for any act which would prevent an adjustment 
with Great Britain. He knew more, that any honest and fair arrange- 
ment with that nation, would be fatal to his popularity and power. 

He was influenced in that case by the same motives which induced 
him to adopt the late more extraordinary step, of dismissing a British 
Envoy under a pretence of an -insult, which never existed. 

In botli cases he was suie of, and he has received, much moio sin- 
cere praise from his frieuds, than if he had closed v/ith M:'. Jackson's 



offer, and had coiulucted, a-j that gentleman li. authorized to do, z 
final adjustment of all our differences. 

That these suggestions are not the offspring of a jealous and fault- 
finding disposition, the publick will believe, when I come to consider 
the offenive measures adopted by our government, to prevent even 
the one- sided arrangement of Mr. Erskine from being accepted by 
the British Cabinet. 

[See the Note to this paper, No. 4, in the Appendix,^ 



No. V. 



The Origm, Progress and Issue of Mr. Erskine^ s Ar- 
rangement, 

IT has been shewn that this arrangement originated in proposals 
transmitted by Mr. Erskine as from our oivn Government : — That the 
instructions are formed upon a basis supposed to have been proposed 
,by them : — That the convention itself affords no evidence of sincerity 
on the part of our administration, because it was concluded not only 
without a demand of Mr. Erskine's full powers, without a knowledge 
that such powers existed, but witli the express knowledge that he vio- 
lated what he had stated to be his instructions. We have endeav- 
oured to shew a good reason why our Government should be willing 
to take such a hazardous step with the full conviction that the agree- 
ment would be rejected^ — that the tendency of it would be to widen 
the breach between the two countries, and therefore would be the 
most grateful offering which Mr. Madison could make to his own 
party, and that as sucli it has been received — received as a pledge of 
his devotion to their views, of his disposition to gratify the most 
favourite v/ishes of their hearts. 

Mr, Madison had further motives sufficiently powerful to induce 
iilm to take this bold and artful step. 

The Non-Intercourse with Great Britain, as a substitute to the 
Embargo, pleased no party in the United States. It was an extorted 
compromise with the different parties in our country. To the south- 
ern states it afforded but an imperfect relief. Fhe necessity of tran- 
shipment, of a circuitous voyage in order to bring their staple pro- 
ductions to their best market. Great Britain, afforded them only a 
partial remedy. Whatever may be the pretences of Mr. Madison, 
that the United States have suffered an " irreparable injury " by Mr. 
Erskine's agreement, and that Great Britain has gained an essential 
advantage, the people of the United States know and feel the contrary 
to be the fact. — Fhe most popular act, therefore, Mr Madison could 
have performed, was the opening of the direct trade with Great 
Britain. — This is well known, and this the experience of the she: t 
interval of freedom abundantly proves. 



Another consideration powerfully operated with Mr. Madison. — 
It had been contended by Mr. Madison and his party, from the time 
of his famous resolutions in 1795, that America held the destinies of 
Great Britain in the hollow of her hand — that we had only to open 
our granaries, and slie enjoyed plenty — and to close them, and she 
starved. The Embargo was the effect and the experiment of this 
policy. Although it disappointed all the hopes of its friends, yet the 
folly of Mr. Er;:kine (to use the mildest term) seemed to offer them 
a J hope of proving to their party, what experience had already con- 
V need the leaders was not true, that their prophecies were correct. 
If the second nation in Europe could be compelled to relinquish her 
.general policy, without a substitute, merely by our restrictive ener- 
gies ; the triumph of Mr. Madison would be complete. 

Although, therefore, he might have known, and as we have shewn 
<iid know, that Great Britain never meant to recede from her system 
of retaliation, but with a substitute on our part, which would com- 
pletely supercede it aud occupy its place ; yet when he found a feeble 
minister capable of being cajoled by general professions, and influ- 
enced by a desire of assisting the party to which his father and him- 
self belonged in Great Britain, who (always in opposition) had par- 
ticularly opposed the British retaliating Orders ; is it extraordinary 
that Mr. Madison should be willing to agree to an arrangement, 
though persuaded that it would be rejecte'd, which would afford a 
temporary triumph to his principles ? 

His game was a certain one — he could not be a loser, and he might 
gain immortal glory. 

If, said he, Great Britain, unwilling as I know her to be, to enter 
into a contest with us, shall ratify the unauthorized act of her minis- 
ter, then we can justly boast that our policy, our restrictive, pacific, 
energetic policy, has brought to our feet the proud mistress of the 
ocean ; my praise will be in all the cities ; and France, grateful for 
my co-operation, will add new praises and new laurels to my brow. — 
But if Great Britain, indignant at the conduct of her minister, shall 
refuse to ratify, we shall have created a new cause of complaint ; I 
shall be fixed more firmly than ever in the affections of my party, 
and in the good will of France. 

Though these considerations were sufficient to anv reasonable cal- 
culating politician, yet Mr. Madison looked still deeper. « The pas- 
« sions of a populace (he must have said to himself) arc not so easily 
'• controlled. The leaders must consult these passions, not attempt to 
" direct them. It is too Herculean a task to hope to render a state oi 
'< peace with Great Britain Jio/ndar. The federalists and men of 
"property will support nie, to be sure, but an honest peace with Eng- 
" land will destroy the firmest administration. To avoid then this 
'' rock upon which even Washington's administration had almost split, 
" I will take care (said Mr. Madison) so to conduct this negocialior- 
" that it shall be impossible, absolutely imjiossible, for Great Britain t* 
"■' accede to the arrangement." 



In exainiuing Mr. Erskine's ap;i'ecmciu wc .iccordiugly find a Ian- 
guaj;e adopted by our cabinet which l)rcatlics the spirit of defiance, 
rather than of friendship ; which resembles rather a manifesto of war 
than a friendly discussion leading to a permanent peace. 

When parties suppose they are about to settle their differences, it 
is common and it is natural to adopt a language of conciliation. In 
this case we find no courtesy, but a spirit of reproof. Great Britain 
had contended, that it was our duty, to repel the aggressions of France, 
and she had manifested a disposition uniformly to withdraw her Orders 
in Council whenever we should take any effectual steps to vindicate 
our own rights against France, in the vindication of which she herself 
had a direct interest : — For her Orders in Council were nothing more 
than retaliating upon her enemy that injustice which neutrals (the 
only one of w-hich remaining was America) permitted France to in- 
flict upon her through their fags. 

As soon then as Great Britain found we were disposed to resist the 
decrees of France, she was ready to withdraw her Ordtu's in Council, 
inasmuch as our laws, if duly enforced, would supercede the necessity 
of her blockade. 

Upon this basis Mr. Erskine's arrangement is professedly founded 
— but although this was the only ground upon which Great Britain 
could with any honour as it respected her tnemy withdraw her Or- 
ders in Council, yet our Ministers inserted in this firetended and affect- 
ed pacific arrangement, a clause which took away froni Great Britain 
the only salvo to her pride — the only apology for her honour. They 
declared that the act prohibiting intercourse with France did not 
" proceed from any disposition to produce an equality between the two 
" nations, but arose from separate and distinct co?mderatio7is.'" In 
other words, lest you should presume that wc were actuated by a 
sense of justice to you or by your remonstrances on that subject, wc 
declare wc had no intention to do you justice, and your acknowledg- 
nicnt and repeal we choose to have considered as a pure concession 
to us and to our forcible and energetic measures. 

A still more affrontive clause was added to the acceptance of satis- 
laction for the Chesapeake. 

The Government of the United States, did accept, as a full and 
complete satisfaction, the terms which Great Britain offered. If 
peace had been the object it should have been received with good 
will, but in lieu of this, our Minister told Mr. Erskine, after agreeing 
to the terms, " that it would have been for the honour of his " Britan- 
nic Majesty to have punished Admiral Berkeley." 

Admit the fact thus offensively alledged, if you choose : — Admit it 
Avas disreputable in his Britannic Majesty not to punish Admiral 
Berkeley : — Still we agreed to accept of a satisfaction nvithout it — and 
if a good understanding had been wished or expected, we ought to 
have abstained from such offensive terms. 

It caunot be necessary to men of sentiment to add, that to say that 
it would have been more to his Britanniclc Majesti/s hoiiour to have 
done a certain thing is tantamount to saying that to omit doing it is 
^Uxhonourable. 



19 ^f-71 

Is this the administration -which is so alive to the insults of Mi\ 
Jackson, which no man can perceive and no man point out ? 

The fact is well known, that when these expressions were read in 
the British Parliament all the bitter distinctions of party were melted 
away,and dissipated in one common sense of indignation at an unmerited, 
unprovoked and deliberate insult, at -dmoraentoi arreted rcco?tcil!atio7u 

Mr. Erskine has never found a defender in Parliament : No, nor 
even in the prostituted vehicles of the opposition. 

Where then do we find the evidence of sincerity of our goveni- 
ment ? In making a treaty without demanding the powers of the 
agent ? In forming a convention with a man who stated that he Avaw 
violating his instructions ? Or in the unprecedented affrontive lan- 
guage made use of after a compromise had been agreed to ? 

In ihe /i7-esent number I have only time to add one more proof to 
those 1 have already adduced of insincerity. It is a fact, that although 
this arrangement was made with Great Britain, all the democratic pa- 
pers contiiuied the same virulent abuse of that government which 
they had used when we were on the eve of a war. 

But a more inaterial fact is, that Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the 
Treasury ; Mr. Seaver, democratic member of Congress from Nor- 
folk, on the 4th July, at Dcdham ; and the marshal of this district, are 
said, all of them, before the disavowal of Great Britain was known in 
this country, to have publicly declared that they feared the agreement 
would not be ratified, because Mr. Erskine bad cjcceeded his powers. — 
How did these gentlemen divine this ? If from our Cabinet the infor- 
mation was derived, what becomes of their sincerity, what of their 
honesty in clamoring against Great Britain for an act which their own 
consciences had taught them to expect ?* 



No. VI. 



The Origin, Progress and Issue of Mr. Erski;jje's 
Arrangement. 
ANOTHER circumstance, the tendency of which is to prove the 
insincerity of our Cabinet, in the agreement with Mr. Erskine, is the 
appointment of Mr. Adams, as minister to Russia. I have been 
astonished that so little consequence has been attached to this meas- 
ure, which in any country of Europe, would have excited the most 
curious inquiry, and the most serious alarm. The time in which his 
his nomination -wasjirst made, the knowledge that a serious coalition 
had been just then formed to destroy the commercial power of Great 
Britain — the illegal and unauthorised appointment of Mr. Short, by 
Mr. Jefferson, at such a juncture — the nearly unanimous refusal to 

* Mr. Prince, marshal of tiiis District, lias publislicd a note in wliicli he 
admits his prophetic spirit, but denies that he derived his information from 
Wasliing-ton. No man could be so weak as to suppose that the Cabinet lield a 
direct correspondence witii Marshal Prince. — There are athousand ways of 
communicatint,'- facts and opinions^ Mithout confiding: in the discretion of 
everv inferior officer. 



//^ 20 

sanction that appointment— the solemri vote of the senate on the 
motior. of Mr. Lioyd (one of the most intelligent merchants in either 
branch) *•' that uny mission to Russia was inex[iedient and unnecessary." 
The conviction in the mind of every intelligent man, that this vote of 
the Senate was correct, are all of them proofs that this measure has 
some object beyond \i^,/irst appearance. \Ve have passed thirty years 
safely and prosperouly without a minister to Russia ; our trade to 
th.it country inconsiderable in itself, was perfectly well managed 
without -;ny Consul, and was certainly sufficiently secure with an able 
Consul General. Russia is not an important naval power ; and it is 
pn the occctn alone that the the. n-<. of A nericm politics is erected. 

When therefore Mr. Jefferson, at a moment of hostility with Great 
Britain, nominated a minsiter ;.w ..a^oia; iivaeu he selected for that 
purpose the man, the most completely pledged of any citizen in the 
United States — the man who had justified the Berlin decrees as 
merely retaliatory on the Bitisli rule of 1756, all prudent men stood 
appalled. Even an obedient Senate, so complaisant in general to the 
executive, coidd not discern the expediency of multiplying our 
Foreign relations. A momentary compunction seemed to take pos- 
sessioKi of the party, which had for so many years opposed tlic exten- 
sion of our dipioiTiatic connections. 

Mr. Jefferson was dif,graced — The Senate almost unanimously 
voted that any mission to Russia w.is inexpedient. Without doubt 
many of them thought that to multiply and to draw closer our connec- 
tions with the Allies of France wouia lend to increase t:\e difficulties 
and impediments to a good understanding with Great Britain. 

An ordinary inan^likc the ivite- f this article, would have supposed 
it an insult, if not a breach of privilege, for a President to repeat the 
same proposition in three or four months to the same public body 
which had rejected it — it would seem to be still more extraordinary, 
that a moment should be selected for this purpose, when we had just 
concluded a preliminary treaty with Great Britain (if the sa7ne had 
been sincerely concliidrd,) and when we expected soon to discuss and 
settle the remaining disputes with that nation. No man could doubt, 
that the tendency of such a measure w^s to excite the jealousy of the 
Briush Court. " What, Avould a Briash minister say, does America 
at the moment of tendering to us the olive branch, arm the deceitful 
stranger with the sharpest thorns ? Is she not content with the oflen- 
sive and indecorous language in which she has clothed her offers, but 
do6s she at this moment, court an intimacy with one of our enemies, 
■with whom duiing ner whole political existence, she has hitherto had 
no political connection ? 

The mission to Russia, when considered in all its views, does not 
augur a sincere disposition t conciliate Great Britain — and cannot be 
defended unless some person can shew, against the express vote of 
the Senate, that the measure was highly necessary and expedient. 

Another fact, the tendency of which is to prove that our Cabinet 
had no expectation or wish that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine 
should take effect, is the conduct of Mr. Madison and of Congress at 
the June session. 



21 /7.3 

Mr. Madison, if you take Mr. Erskine's 7?r."}; statement to his o^vn 
Government, had assured that minister, that if Great Brit.ja would 
refiral her Orders^ we would take side with her against those nations 
which kept in force decrees infringing the rights of neutrals and of 
Great Britain. 

When called upon by our government to explain, the submissive 
and suppliant Mr. iMskine, still persists that Mr. Madison told iiim, 
that although he could not answer for Congress, yet that there was no 
doubt but that Congress would honestly fulfil this implied stipulation, 
and would enforce our laws against the oflending power. 

What was the fact I Mr. Madison not only fails to recommend it 
in his speech, but Congress neglect to include Holland, though within 
the British orders, tiiough within the absolute dominion of France, 
though enforcing laws injurious both to our own rights and those of 
Great Britain. What apology is made for this breach of faiih ? Shall 
ive say that Mr. Madison's suggestions amounted to no fdedgr ? Did 
they not bind himself^ at least, to the recommendation ? What is the 
excuse set up for this violation of a private understanding ? Mr. 
Smith tells us, that it Avas less important to Great Britain because 
Holland excluded us from her ports. This if it had been true would 
have been a singular reason ibr opening our trade with her, but it 
was not correct — She has never excluded ovir ships freighted with 
certain productions of our own country, unless they came within the 
provisions of the Dutch decree, which copied the decrees of Berlin 
and Milan. 

Thus we sec that if tiie arrangement with Mr. Erskine had been 
deemed by Mr. Madison a serious one, he has very ill fulfilled the 
poor and narrow^ conditions which he had persuaded Mr. Erskine to 
accept in lieu of those to which he was directed to assent. 

Let us now say 'd.few words upon the rejection of the agreement by 
Great Britain, for a few only, with the remarks we have before made, 
Avill suffice. 

Great Britain would have had a right to have refused to ratify the 
agreement even if Mr. Erskine had pursued his instructions^ because 
he was not vested with ./;/// /zort'cr.?, and she would only have been 
obliged to say to us that he had no sufficient authority. 

This is supported by the quotation from Vattel, made by our own 
Civilian, Mr. Smith, and which is in fact, and is to be presumed to be 
the strongest case he can cite — Vattel says that agreements and treaties 
made in virtue of a full Jionver are binding. Now this implies neces- 
sarily that if they are not made in virtue of a full Jiower^ they are not 
binding. 

That the General letter of credence of even a I'esident Minister 
plenipotentiary is not a full power, we have the testimony of all the 
great civilians, but of none who deserve so much weight in this cascy 
as that of the very learned Doctor in Law, Thomas Jeffi^rson, whose 
authority we cited in a Note to No. IV. 

But Great Britain is not so mean and ungenerous as to put her 
disavowal on the mere want of power. She says " I will not imitate 



« youi^xaniple in tlic rase of the treaty made by Messrs. Muiiroc 
« and Pinkney. Tlie simple want of authority would not induce mc 
4' to reject a treaty just and equal. But I reject it because my seiyaut 
« broke his order's. " Whether he broke them or not, is immaterial to 
« you. It is sufficient that lie had no power, and you never even 
*' asked him whether he had, which you know is the established 
« usage, and which usage you yourselves adopted against our former 
« minister Hammond. It is therefore, doubly unreasonable that you 
« should complain of a measure, which I was, on two principles, both 
« equally recognized by the laws of nations, authorized to adopt." 

That Great Britain did not, as she well might have done, repose 
upon the general incoinfictency of Mr. Erskinc's powers, M'ho not only 
did not possess a/z/// ;^o-wer, but of whom our government, contrary 
to their orjn Jormer conduct, did riot demand any evidence of author- 
ity, we have the declaration of Mr. Jackson, who states, that although 
Mr. Erskine had no fioivers to conclude such an arrangement, yet that 
his Britannick Majesty did not disavow his agreement on that ground, 
but solely because, though acting without powers, he violated, in a 
gross manner, his instructions. These instructions are now before 
the public. Every man knows that they were violated, in letter and 
in spirit — and our own goveiniment do not pretend to deny this point. 
But there is one circumstance worthy of notice. The British Cabi- 
net had no confidence in the talents of Mr. Erskine — they not only 
bound him down to precise terms, but they required that even if 
these terjHs -^rere com/died with., still that they should not be held till 
they should receive in England, an official note, declaring the consent 
of our government to them. This was tantamount to a positive reser- 
vation of a ratification. Shall we be told, that our government did not 
knonv this ? That the instructions were not communicated in cKtenso ? 
I answer, this is not the fault of Great Britain. She authorised her 
minister to shew them, and we were bound by the law of nations to 
demand his authority, as we have proved by the letter of Mr. Jeffer- 
son to Mr. Hammond. 

This brings me to the last remark, which I have to make iii proof, 
that the agreement with Mr. Erskine was not sincere, but was intend- 
ed to be vised as a source of new difficulties, and to be the apology for 
a rupture. 

If that arrangement had been made bona fide, and with an honest 
disposition to bring about a solid peace with Great Britain, the disa- 
vowal of it would have been received as all nations receive events of 
that sort, without emotion or complaint. As two perfect reasons, as 
we have shewn, existed to justify Great Britain in rejecting the agree- 
ment, for neither of which was she accountable to us further than to 
state them, it was sufficient for her to make this known to us through 
any chauucl. I shall, on a future occasion, consider the high mettled 
and fastidious ground taken by our government, that a special envoy 
should be sent with a special power, with a certain technical form of 
words, and should make a formal procession to the Capital in a peni- 
tential i^heet, to apologize for an act which we and all other nition?, 



23 /y^' 

\^\e done without any apology — in shoi't, to apologize lor the neglect 
of our own ministers in not demanding Mr. Erskine's powers. 

But I cannot quit this part of my subject, which is now completed, 
without one further remark, that it is somewhat suigular, that our 
National sensibility should be so local or personal — That while France 
is allovved to kick us from !• inland to the pillars of Hercules, without 
j)rovoking any other ol)servation, than that the '■'■ fiosture of our affairs'* 
is not changed, we should be so extremely sore — so tremblingly alive 
to all the injuries of Cireat Britain, that even Shakespeare, in his 
Meiculio, has given us but a tame sketch of our irritable sense of honor. 
Whether a repeal of a piocUimation shall be dated to-day or to-morrow ; 
whether an explanation is made through our resident minister — ov 
the offending minister, or his successor, or whether, though the suc- 
cessor makes the explanation, he uses a legal form of words for that 
purpose, and lastly, whether, in statMig what we admit to be true, he 
adopts a larger word, or a more copious expression, or deduces an 
inference amounting to an intimation of an insinuation, is in our very^ 
valiant temper, sufficient cause for the dismissal of a minister, ami ^ 
for incurring the horrors of an interminable war. 



No. VII. 



'Mr. J A c K s o N 's Dismtssal^Its important Consequences 

Its pretended Justijicution. 

WE come now- to the consideration of the most momentous ques. 
t.on which the United States have ever been called upon to decide 
since the declaration of Independence : and it is astonishing with 
what an apparent apathy this question is considered by men of all 
ranks, of all grades of understanding and acquirements. They seem 
to treat It as if it bore some degree of resemblance to the questions 
which have for several years past agitated the public mir.d, and as if 
it was certam that, like them, it would end in noisy and vapid decla- 
mation. It IS, however, no less a question than that of a ruinous war, 
or a disgraceful peace. The position in which the late dismissal of 
Mr. Jackson has placed the United States is one from which thev can 
never extricate themselves with honour ; and they may esteem them- 
se ves the favourites of Heaven if they escape from it without serious 
calamity. Our Hue no longer depends on the wavering, noisy, and 
vapouring councils ol boisterous demagogues, but upon the policy 
and prudence ot another nation, upon whose good-will we can no 
longer calculate— Let us explain ourselves. 

The right to dismiss a foreign Minister for indecorous or offensive 
conduct, (however it may have been questioned, and indeed denied, 
as we shall shew, by Mr. Madison's party,) can never be doubted by 
any man acquainted with public law, nor will be contested by any 



n^ 



24 



person wlio is alive to Ihe true interests and honour of his country. If 
the offence is palpable and unquestionable, no nation which regards 
its character, and which wishes to preserve peace, will hesitate to 
recall its minister who has been guilty of such an offence. The har- 
mony of the two nations is not in such a case in any degree affected. 

But if the case be a questionable one, and especially if the time, 
conduct, and circumstances be such as to render it obvious that is was 
eitiier intended as an affront, or as an excuse for the rupture of nego- 
civ lion, it becomes impossible for the injured nation to recall his 
Minister, to disgrace him in the eyes of the world, and to renew the 
interrupted intercourse. 

If such a dismissal be, moreover, accompanied with circum- 
stances of insult and aggravation, %var may be expected to follow ; 
and Mr. Giles, in this case, with a spirit tvnXy /iroph-tic, has predicted 
that such will probably be the i'jsult. — Why that gentleman should 
have presumed it, if Mr. Jackson has been rightfully dismissed for 
his own personal misconduct, we leave to the public to decide. 
Should, however, Great-Britain not deem it for her interest, in this 
instance to declare war, let us consider what will be oivn firedicament ? 
"We pretend that we have sustained great and unexampled wrongs, — 
Great-Britain will not send us another Minister, if, (as it will appear) 
Mr. Jackson has been guilty of no breach of decorum. We shall 
be compelled, from the hiyariable usage of nations, and respect to our 
national character, to recall Mr. Pinkney. What then will become 
of our long-contuuied complaints ; of those deep and premeditated 
injuries with which our present administration have so frequently filled 
the public ear, and with which they have so often and so successfully 
inflamed the public passions ? 

Are we to submit to them, without redress ? or, if we are, shall we 
forego, forever, the advantages arising from a free commerce not 
only to Great Britain, but to all the countries to which she now inter- 
dicts our entry ? I'i'ar then on our side seems to be our only choice, 
unless we shall prefer to aubmit. Great-Britain never can send anoth- 
er Minister to this country ; and surely our government never will 
make another advance to her. — It would be a concession that we 
■were in the wrong, to which so lofty a pride as that which dictated 
the dismissal of Mr. Jackson, for merely an intimation not perceptible 
to ordinary understandings, could never submit. 

Such then are the serious consequences of this measure — conse- 
quences far more important than any which ha^e yet followed from 
any measure adopted by any administration in our country. Either 
war upon us by Great-Britain, war by us against her, or a submission 
to all her alledged wrongs, and a total suspension of intercourse 
with her, until either she or ourselves shall so far forget our pride 
and honour as to court a renewal of intercourse. 

Now, serious and alarming as this posiiion is, no honourable man, 
no man who regards the rights and dignity of his country, will regret 
the consequences, if the raeasure was culled for by our honour — it 
not, let the censure fall upon those persons wlio rashly advised so 



25 



ni 



hasty and momentous a step. The administration have defended this 
measure by the example of General Washington in the case of 
Genet — the allusion is an unfortunate one, on every account. I had 
intend^j'd to cite this case against thcm^ and I could not have dreamed 
that Mr. Madison or his friends would have had the imprudence to 
induce us to take a retrospective view of that dlHgraccfuL scene. — 
That these men, who now affect to be so alive to the national honour, 
who are so ready to take offence at a look, a word, an insinuation^ 
should remind us of a period in, which not only the honour of the coun- 
try was trampled under foot, but in which uie lorcifjn agents who in- 
sulted us were honoured, feasted, and set up in hostile array by our 
own citizens against their own government, is among the marvellous 
events of the evil times on which we have f lilen. Genet was not dismiss- 
ed, his recall only was requested, and his personal and political friends, 
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison knew it full well ; Genet was 
not requested to be recalled merely for any insulting language towards 
our own government : — It was for a long continued series of overt 
r/r/.9, for which he might have been tried and punished, that Mr. Genet 
was suspended : — It was for assuming the fvmctions of his office be- 
fore he was accredited ; for promoting military expeditions in our 
territory ; for resisting the executions of the laws ; for openly defy- 
ing the executive authority, to which were only su/irradded personal 
insults, which were repeated for several months before the pru- 
dence and patience of General Washington were exhausted. Mr. 
Jefferson and Mr. Madison can tell, why the President was so for- 
bearing. They can tell us how large, how powerful Avas the combina- 
tion of then* friends, agahist our government and in favour of Genet. 
Let us now proceed to examine the concealed insult, which is said 
to LURK soMEWHEKE in Mr. Jackson's correspondence. There 
•were several interesting circumstances attending the disclosure of this 
pretended insult, which led many judicious men to suspect, that the 
transaction would not bear the closest examination. The people at 
large are not capable of expending the time and devoting the atten- 
tion necessary to the perusal and comparison of a long correspondence 
expressed in the studied language of diplomatic men. It was known 
to the administration, that if an unequivocal declaration should be 
made to the public, that Mr. Jackson had insulted our government, 
this would reach every head, and inflame every heart in the United 
States, while the slow and laborious vindication or disproof of such a 
charge, received with distrust, into minds already prejudiced, would 
make but a feeble progress. The act of publishing the statement of 
Mr. Jackson's insult in the Mitirmal InteUig^ncer was the act of the 
government : That statement proves to be a copy of the official note 
addressed to Air. Jackson. The government then, ten days only be- 
fore the meeting of Congress, published an account of the dismissal 
and of its pretended causes and called upon the people to resent this 
conduct before any evidence of it was laid before them. The JVation-. 
al Intelligencer endeavoured to excite the highest degree of irritation 
4<nd succeeded in it. Tinding that the public mind M-ould become too 

4 



ni 26 

nmch excited, liiey cliun^^'ed their tone, and bes^i^ed the people to re- 
slruin their rage, and not to violate the immimiues of Mr. Jackson's 
office by an outrage on his person. If the formal noiice of the insult 
was the act of the government, so also was this ; and yet this very- 
administration make it a subject of complaint against Mr. Jackson 
that he demanded a safe conduct against the populace whom tl^e pa- 
trons of the A'ational Inielligencer endeavoured to appease, and whose 
lury they appeared to dread. A second circumstance, which tended 
to excite a suspicion of unfairness, was the attempt to divert the pub- 
lic attention from the alleged insult which was the avowed cause of 
the rupture of the negotiation, to the propositions pretended to have 
been made by Mr. Jackson. This was a subject more complex, more 
difficult for the people to comprehend. But the resort to it was a 
subterfuge which we shall endeavour to remove. A third circum- 
stance, which has a very suspicious appearance, is the cliange in the 
ttrms of the charge brought against Mr. Jackson. We were at Jirst 
told, that he had given the lie du-ect. — Even the M'atioyial Intelligenc- 
er led us to suppose, that he had charged the government with the 
knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, of which they had declared 
they had no knovJedge ; we supposed the contradiction was upon some 
plain, specific, and important fact : but as soon as Mr. Jackson's ex- 
planation appeared, it was thought necessary to write a letter to Mr. 
Pinkney, and to explain the charge. A very different view is given 
of the affair in this letter from the first statement in the Intelligencer. 
This leads us to a belief that if Mr. Jackson's circular had not reach- 
ed the press, we shcuid never hiive seen Mr. Smith's very extraordi- 
nary letter to Mr. Pinkiicy. Under circumstances so inauspicious to 
truth, did this transaction appear before the public. Let us now pro- 
ceed to shew, from the documents, that there is not even a shadow 
for ihe charge as it stands corrected, and dwindled down to pigmy size 
in the letter to Mr. Pinkney. The charge .as it is now corrected and 
explained, may be found in the following extract from Mr. Smith's 
letter to Mr. Pinkney, of November 23d, 1809 : 

" It ivas never objected to him, that he had stated it as a fact, that the 
three /iropositions in question, had been submitted to me by Air. Erskine, 
nor that he had stated it, as made known to him by the instructions of 
Mr. Canning, that the instruction to Mr. Erskine, containing those 
three conditions, was the only one from which his authority was derived^ 
to conclude an arrangcmtnt on the matter to whieh it related. The ob- 
jection was, that a kriowledge of this restriction of Mr. Elrskine, was 
imputed to this Govermnent, and the rejietition of the imjiutation, after 
it had been peremptorily disclaimed.'* 

The amount of thio paragraph and charge is simply this, that Ml'. 
Jackson either by direct assertion, implication, inference, or insinua- 
tion, did either say or suggest " that our government knew that Mr. 
" Erskme had no other inUruclions than those which they adnnt were 
« made knuwn to them," and that he repeated this insinuation after our 
government disclaijucd such knowledge. — Had Mr. Jackson so have 
conducted ne would have been not omy insolent, but extremely weak. 



27 '^^^ 

— For it would have been ridiculous in him to impute to our govern^ 
nient the knowledge of such a negative^ which it was almost impos- 
sible they could have known, besides, that such an imputation would 
have been contradictory to other parts of his owri letters. — In his liet- 
ter of the 1 1th of October, he tells iMr. Smith " that although when he 
" left England it was believed that Mr. Erskine, had shewn his in- 
*' structions in extenso — yet it now a/ificared he did not.''^ This was a 
candid dismission of Mr. Smith's declaration on this subject ; and in 
the same letter he adds, " that the letter of the 23d January, from Mr. 
" Canning to Mr. Erskine, was the only despatch by which the condi- 
*' tions of an arrangement were prescriijed ;" — and he adds no insimt- 
ation or inference that our government knew this to be the fact. On 
the contrary, the declaration to Mr Smith in so solemn and formal a 
manner, implied, luuivcidably implied that our government did not 
know that fact before. If, then, it would have been absurd and con- 
tradictory in Mr. Jackson to have insinuated such a knowledge of the 
restriction of Mr. Erskine, let us see whether in point of/act he was 
guilty of this folly. The first instance in which any mention is made 
of the instructioiis of Mr. Erskine is in Mr. Jackson's first let'er of 
October 1 1th. After stating that it was believed that Mr. Erskine had 
commur.icated his powers in extenso, when Mr. Jackson left England, 
and admitting the fact unconditionally and frankly " that he had not," he 
proceeds to state, that by Mr. Erskine's letters it appeared that the three 
conditions which formed the basis of his instructions had been made 
known to our cabinet, and that all the arguments and observations upon 
those conditions by our minister had been stated by Mr. Erskine to his 
own government, from all which he injers, that the substitution of other 
articles instead of those proposed by Great Britain was a proof that the 
conditions nvere known to us. He only adds to this simple and intelli- 
gible idea, one " remark that our government must now perceive how 
"widely the agreement difters from the conditions -presiihed., -and of 
" course how just were the claims of Great Britain to refuse her assent 
" to it." Is there in all this the remotest intimation, inference or in- 
sinuation that our cabinet knew or might have known, or miglit have 
inferi . d that these were Mr. Erskine's only instructions ? Mr. Jack- 
son adds, that the despatch of the 23d January was the only one by 
ivhich the terms were prescribed. — This clause is simple unaccompa- 
nied with any inference gf insinuation whatever ; and we assert con- 
fidently, that no other passage can be found in this first letter relative 
to this subject. In Mr. Smith's reply to this letter we ouglit to ex- 
pect to find not only a reproof or notice of any olVensive terms, had 
there been any but a particular designation of the part which was 
deemed offensive. — Mr. Smith does express his surprise, that Mr. 
Jackson should lay so much stress on the want of complaint on the 
part of our cabinet, and on the subsiiuition of other tei-ms instead of 
those which Mr. Erskine was authorised to propose ; — but he does 
not intimate that Mr. Jackson had drawn from those circumstances a 
conclusion that our government hcid a knowledge of the restricted 
powers of Mr. Eskine. Now, as Mr, Jackson had not in fact, as we 



f<^0 ' :28 

have shewn, drawn any such conclusion, and as Mr. Smith did not tell 
him that he supposed he had, how could that minister divir.e it or 
give any explanation of it ? Mr Smith adds, " that if the government 
" had known that the conditions presented by Mr. Erskine were the 
" only ones on which he was authorized to make the arrangement, it 
" never would have been made." This was the moment for him to 
have told Mr. Jackson that he understood him to insinuate in his first 
letter that our government had such knowledge. This was omitted. 
AVhy ? Because Mr. Jackson had made no such insinuation. Biu if he 
had made it, it would have been no oflFence until our government de- 
nied it, which they never did till this clause was inserted in Mr. Smith's 
letter of Oct. 1 9th. The offence, if any, must be found, therefore, in 
the subsequent correspondence. The next letter from Mr. Jackson 
in reply to this denial now Jirst made by our government of their 
knowledge of the restricted nature of Mr. Erskine's powers, is dated 
Oct. 23d : — In this letter he most deUcately abstains from any insinu- 
ation of the knowledge of our government of Mr. Erskine's restric- 
tions :— The only sentence in relation to this subject, are the follow- 
ing, and are in strict and exact conformity to the facts admitted by our 
Cabinet. 

" These instj'uctiotis (Mr. Erskine^s) I now understand by your 
letter as well us the deductions which I took the liberty of making' in 
mine^ of the Wth inst. were at the time in substance, made known to 
■ y07i." 

" You arc already acquainted with that which was given (alluding to 
■he communication of Mr. Canning^ s letter to Mr. Erskine^ which was 
shewn to JMr. Pinkney.,) and I have had the honour of informing you 
that it was the only one by which the conditions were jirescribed. 

These are the only sentences which aifcct this qucstibn, in this 
letter. It is impossible to conceive of language more clear — it is 
difficult to form an idea of expressions more respectful or less offen- 
sive. Yet the next we hear from Mr. Smith, on this subject, is in 
the highest possible tone of haughtiness and aff'ront : — He assures 
Mr. Jackson, without any qualification, that his language is imfirofier 
and irrelevant, and that Mr. Jackson had insinuated which '.,- ■ have 
proved he had not., that our government knew that Mr. Erskine's in- 
structions did not authorise him to conclude the arrangement, and 
that he must not rclieat the insinuation which he had never made. 
^Ir. Jackson had insinuated only what our government admitted^ thai 
they knew the substance of Mr. E7-skine\s /towers, and the only infer- 
ence he made w..s that his Miijcsty was not held by an agreement 
Avhich so essentially departed from them. The language of Mr. 
Jackson heretofoi-c was not considered good cause for dismissing him, 
but we are told that in his last letter he persisted in the same insinu- 
ations, with aggravating circumstances. In that letter we affirm, that 
not one line can be found, alluding to the contested point. There is 
a moderation, accompanied with firmness, which Mr. Smith would do 
well to imitate : — The only passage which can be pretended to refer 
'« the dispute. -is the last pa-.^graph, where Mr. Jackson regrets that 



29 l^i 

iic should be charged iti unqualified terms, Avith irrelevant and im- 
proper arguments, and adds, " that he should not think of uttering 
an inninuution, where he was unable to substantiate a. fact.'" 

Now it is said, and said with justice, that if Mr. Jackson had made 
an improper insinuathn before^ this was in effect, an adherence i' -t, 
snd an oHensivc one. This ivc admit ; — but as he had made \\i in- 
sinuation, as wc have proved, but oi facts admitted by our Cati.-.ct, 
and especially as he had 720;^ made the indmiation now charged upon 
him, it was not a breach of delicacy to assert, that he had made no 
insinuations unsupported by facts. 



No. \ III. 



Mr. Smith's offensive Insijiuations, and irritating Lan- 
guage to Mr. Jackson. 

WE have shewn, that neither the original charge of insult, pre- 
ferred against Mr. Jackson, in the note, by which his functions were 
suspended, nor the milder and corrected explanations of that charge, 
in the letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, can be supported by 
any fair construction of Mr. Jackson's letters. What then, is the 
result ? Why, that the certainty of a continuance of a state of irrita- 
tion and danger, and the possibi/ity of the horrible calamities of War, 
are to be endured by the people of the United States, on account of 
an imaginary insult, of such extreme tenuity, of such an impercepti- 
ble and intangible form, that it requires all the sophistry of Mr. Giles, 
in a speech of twenty pages, to present a faint and feeble picture of 
it. — An insult of so subtle and changeable a nature, that every man 
v.'ho would point it out, varies in the selection of the offensive passage, 
and in the construction of the parts selected. 

Who are the men, who v,ould thus inflame the Nation to mortal 
hatred and inextinguishable I'age ] Are they the same persons, who, 
in a moment of pre^en<led reconciliation, told his Britannic Majesty, 
that his offer of reparation for the Chesapeake did not com/iort with 
his honour or dignity ? Or are we to be hurried on to our ruin, under 
the belief, that sejisibiUly and rights are all on our side, and that while 
the sovereign of another nation shall not even look awry at us, v/e may, 
without offence, impeach his good faith, and question his honour ? 

Let us endeavour, for the first time, towards Great Britain, to adopt 
the golden rule of Christianity, which, if it be not respected as an 
authority in our Cabinet, it is hoped, has yet some influence with 
the sober and religious part of our people ; and while we are courting 
a war, on account of pretended insults, in the letters of Mr. Jackson, 
let us see whether the language of iVi r. Smith be wholly faultless — in 
sliort, whether it be not unnecessarily affrontive. 

The correspondence, in the late case, was opened by Mr. Smith, 
by his letter of the 9th of October, and we doubt, whether so abrupt, 



/n 30 

so rude and offensive a note can be found in the whole annals of diplo- 
macy, if we except the uniform tenor of the French corresfwndence 
ivith us. 

■ This letter is in the nature of a manifesto, rather than of a friendly- 
inquiry. It charges Great Britain with perfidy — it declares, by anti- 
cipation, that she had no afiology for it — it alledges, that she had 
made no explanations of her conduct, but that she had accompanied 
this neglect by new and insulting pretensions. It goes further, — It 
specifies those pretensions, though, as we shall hereafter shew, they 
had been absolutely denied by the British minister, in previous con- 
versations, and in fact, no such propositions have ever been suggested 
by him. After all these charges, as unqualified, unmeasured and in- 
decorous in their language as they turn out to be unfounded in point 
of fact, the common rules of diplomacy would have required that !Vlr. 
Smith should have concluded, which he did not^ with some expres- 
sions of confidence in the dififiosition of Ms Britamiic Majesty to re- 
concile his conduct with good faith, and with the principles of justice. 
These professions, insincere enough, to be sure, are a species of 
counterfeit coins, of little or no intrinsick value, but which usage has 
rendered an indispensable medium of Diplomatick Intercourse. And 
tvho ought more scrupulously to adhere to the use of them, than our 
inflammable rulers, who can calmly hazard the existence of a Nation, 
for a supposed failure of etiquette ? 

If Mr. Jackson had replied to this letter of Mr. Smith, (which, we 
must recollect, was the commencement of the correspondence) " that 
the temper in which Mr. Smith's letter was conceived, too much re- 
sembled the ungracious tone in which Mr. Erskine's arrangement wss 
expressed, to leave any hope of benefit from the protraction of the in- 
tercourse," all impartial men would have thought him justified. 

That it must have had, and that in fact, did have, as was doubtless 
intended, an inauspicious and unfavourable effect on Mr. Jackson's 
mind, and on the future style of the negotiation, there can be no doubt. 
It is not a favourable mode of commencing a settlement of antient 
controversaries, to begin with a blow. 

The second instance of indecorum on the part pf Mr. Smith, which 
falls very little short of contradiction, and whatever it may fail of amount- 
ing to that, may be fairly placed to the account of prevarication, is of 
vast importance, because the saiae insult, if it be one, to the British 
minister, is repeated by Mr. Madison in his message. It is the alle- 
gation made in Mr. Smith's first letter, that he learned with surprise 
and regret, that Mr. Jackson, so far from coming prepared to make 
explanations for the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement, had 
been directed to insist upon terms, inadmissible and affrontive. 

Mr. Smith represented in this introductory letter : — 

1st. That Mr. Jackson had no instructions to make any explanation 
of the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's agreement. 

2dly. That in the affair of the Chesapeake, he had no authority to 
assign any reasons for the refusal to accept that part of Mr. Erskine's 
agreement, but that his powers were limited merely to tending a note 



1 /W^3 



oflering the terms of satisfaction, on condition, that he should receive 
a simultaneous answer from our governnent, accepting those terms 
as satisfactoiy. 

odly. That he Avas not authorised to offer any new proposals for the 
repeal of the Orders in Couneil of Nov, 1807. 

And Lastly, That it was the intention of the British Government, 
not to revoke those orders, but upon the three famous conditions, 
which were declared inadmissible by our Government, and which had 
formed the basis of Mr. Erskine's instructions. 

Now I propose to prove, not only that this statement was in every 
respect, except as to the third proposition, untrue and unsupported by 
the correspondence ; but that it was offensively adhered to, after Mr. 
Jackson's explicit declarations to the contrary, not only by Mr. Smith, 
but by Mr. Madison in his message. 

If this shall be made out satisfactorily — if it shall be proved in a man- 
ner to defy contradiction, or refutation, then it will follow, that our 
Government are chargeable, not only with an unfair, but a disreputa- 
ble misrcprcsentaton of the views of the British Cabinet, and with a 
formal contradiction of Mr. Jackson's solemn asseveration. — It should 
here be remembered, that Mr. Jackson is the representative of a Sov- 
reign power, which treats with us on equal terms, and that to call in 
question his veracity, is to doubt the veracity or honour of his Sov- 
reign. 

Let us take up each point distinctly, and in the order iu which Mr. 
Smith states them. 

1st. Did Mr. Jackson tell Mr. Smith that he had no instructions to 
offer any explanation of the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's agreement— 
and has he failed to make any ? — 

Mr. Jackson admits, that he had made no formal communication of 
the motives for the disavowal, for which he assigns two reasons. 

1st. That Mr. Canning had hastened with an ardent zeal to satisfy 
our Government before any complaint had been made by our minister, 
to explain to Mr. Pinkney the motives of the disavowal ; and this not 
by an empty and insincere declaration of Mr. Erksine's having violated 
his orders, but by a candid disclosure of his actual instructions. — This 
was more than the laws of Nations required — It would have been suf- 
ficient to have declared, he had no full powers, but Great Britain wa? 
unwilling that her good faith should be called in question. — She would 
not defend herself on ordinary and sufficierit ground — She produces 
the private instructions, and demonstrates the violation of them in 
toto. — Those instructions moreover, were supposed to have emanated 
from our own proposals, and she would have been justified, in retort 
ing the breach of faith upon us ; but she delicately abstained. — She 
confined herself to her own justification, apd by the laws of nations, by 
our own former example in former treaties made by us, she was fully 
exonerated. 

Secoiidly. The second reason for not having offered an explicit de- 
fence of the disavowal through Mr. Jaskson, was, that Mr. Erskine 
had been directed to make it, and it was supposed, when Mr. Jackson 



AC4 2^ 

came away, that he had done it. — Great Britaip., he declares, was uii- 
Nvillingto rest so long under the imputation of a\vant of good iaith, and 
therefore instantly ordered her minister iierc to explain her m.olives. 

One would suppose this would satisfy the most fastidious and capti- 
ous Government, but Mv. Jackson, anxious to remove every possible 
objection to an amicable adjustment adds, 

" But, If beyond this, any incidental discussion, or explanation, 
"should be wished for by'this Government, I came fuily prepared to 
" enter into them — I even consider them to /mz'e taken place between 
<' us. — I have certainly derived great satisfaction from the several 
" hours we have spent in conference on these mibjects" 

We here perceive,that the explanations had in fact been made , 
though not in the formal manner which the scrupulous nicety of our 
Government, required — We see moreover, that he came fully author- 
ized to supply whatever was deficient iii the explanations of Mr. Can- 
ning or Mr. Erskine. 

To this fair offer Mr. Smith replies in his letter of Oct. 19, that his 
objection was not so much to the want of explanation as to the failure 
of that solemnity and formality which such an important case requir- 
ed — Let us examine this principle — We make a bargain with a minis- 
ter without demanding his powers — It appears not only that he pos- 
sesed none, but that he had violated his positive and clear instructions. 
The law of nations in such a case requires no apology from the na- 
tion which refuses to confirm the agreement of its unauthorised and 
culpable agent — We on the other hand demand not an explanation 
Avhich was given to us and which we had no right to require, but a 
solemn and formal embassy, and a penitential and apologetic document 
from a Nation, which had only exercised its acknowledged rights. 

We may judge from this circumstance of the temper with which 
this Negociation has been conducted, and how impossible it is, that 
Great Britain should ever satisfy our Cabinet. " We should not be 
contented, said Mr. Ames, with a temper like this, if the Treaty left 
King George his Island, not even if he stipulated to pay rent for it." 

But Mr. Smith, not content with this haughty requisition, proceeds, 
in the same letter, to contradict Mr. Jackson. 

« As you have disclaimed any authority to offer explanations for the 
disavowid," Sec [See page 47 of the printed documents.] 

M r. Jackson, however, irritated by this repetition, after his express 
offer to make any additional explanation wiiich might be deemed 
necessary, in place of recrinunuting language, chooses the more 
prudent course of taking away all pretext from his opponent, by stat- 
ing formally the grounds of the disavowal. 

'" I have therefore no hesitation in informing you, that his Majesty 
was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and 
Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation oi XhvX gentlcman'.s 
instructions, and altogether rjithout authority, to agree to the terms oJ' 
it." 

Here one would suppose this question at rest. The true, the only, 
and two sufficient reasons were assigned wiiich jught to have satisfied 
any impartial and honourable mind. 



Still the pertinacity of ouv minister'did not cease. — Still it was 
deemed necessary to affront his Britannic Majesty, through his rep- 
resentative. In Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Pinkney, (page 82, of the 
printed documents) he says, that besides Mr. Jackson's indhtiru-t and 
reluctant explanation of the reasons for the disavowal, he did not make 
his proposal till he had made such progress in his offensive insinua- 
tion as made it proper to wait the issue of his reply about to be given 
to it. 

It is here seen, that this most distinct, plain, correct and forcible 
explanation— an explanation the most perfect that could be given, 
couched in distinct and appropriate language, to wit: that Mr. Ers- 
kine had no authority, and had violated his instructions, is declared to 
be rehictant and inexjilicit. Nor did the misrepresentation and con- 
tradiction end here. It ascended to a higher source — Mr. Madison, 
lo77g after this, referring solely to this point, declares in his Message, 
that " It could not be doubted that the new minister could at least be 
charged with conciliatory explanations." 

" Reasonable and universal as this expectation was, it also has not 
been fulfilled." 

We now pass to the second charge of Mr. Smith against Mr. 
Jackson, and the British Cabinet, that Mr. Jackson not only assigned 
720 reason for the disavowal of that part of Mr. Erskine's arrangement 
which regarded the Chesapeake, but that he had only proposed to 
tender a note offering a satisfaction which should be simultaneous 
with our acceptance of the satisfaction. 

This charge in its.^'"*^ branch is totally unfounded, and in the 
second part of it, the ground taken by the British minister is perfectly 
defensible not only by the law of nations, but bv the circumstances 
which attended their former offer of satisfaction ibr this unauthorised 
injury. 

1st. Then, the first part of the charge that Mr. Jackson, did not 
come prepared to assign any reason for the rejection of this part of the 
agreement, is unfounded. 

Mr. Jackson in his first letter, declares, " that he was authorised to 
rejj€-v the offer made by Mr. Erskine, notwithstanding the imgracious 
manner in which it had been formerly received. — You have said, 
addressing Mr. Smith, that you so fully understood the particulars of 
that offer, that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate them here." 

This clause imd&vs sfiecifcally the terms, because Mr. Erskine's 
arrangement was in our own possession, and Mr. Smith had declared 
his full knowledge of them. It does more : It assigns the reason why 
that part of the agreement was not fulfilled—" because of the ungra- 
cious msxiner in which it was accepted." 

We have shewn in a former number, in what the ungraciousness 
of this manner consisted— but shall it be insisted that Mr. Jackson 
was bound to repeat the offensive terms ? If a man calls me a liar or 
a thiei, is it not enough for me to allude to his offensive epithets, but 
must I be compelled to repeat the outrageous expressions ? 



But Mr. Jackson is more explicit ; he tells Mr. Smith '•' that his 
Majesty Avoiild be just-led in rejecting that agreement not only on 
account of the form in which his Minister had tendered it, but of 
the manner in which that tender had been received." He adds, 
" that he had elucidated that observation by a reference to the 
particular expressions which made the terms of satisfaction appear 
-unaccejilable to the American government, at the very moment 
when they were accepted." 

The just and honourable pride of Mr. Jackson forbad his repeat- 
ing to the world the insulting expressions, but an American who 
thinks as I do, that our government put an unnecessary impedi- 
ment in the way of adjustment, is restrained by no such delicacy. 

It was because our government declared " that the offer made 
by his Britannick Majesty did not comport with his honor and dig- 
nity ;" that it was dishonorable in him to make it ; that the agree- 
ment v/as rejected. This is the reason assigned, and yet we are told 
this is no exjilanation. A Virginia nobleman would not hesitate to 
take away the life of a fellow-citizen on such a ground, and yet we 
are told this is no reasonable ground for rejecting a bargain. 

This phrase purposely introduced, shews, as Mr. Jackson says, 
that the satisfaction given was unaccefitable to our government, and 
yet we complain that this unaccejitable and insufficient satisfaction 
is withheld ! ! — Proh Pudor ! ! 

The second part of this charge in I'elation to the Chesapeake is 
now to be considered. Is it aflProntive to us ? Is it injurious that 
Great-Britain should insist upon having our acceptance of the sat- 
isfaction simultaneous, cotemporaneous with the offer ? Is it unrea- 
sonable that she should insist on seeing the letter agreeing to re- 
ceive the satisfaction ? We think not, because 

1st. Mr. Jackson states that this is the invariable course of Eu- 
ropean governments in like cases. 

Is this denied by Mr. Smith ? We have three letters of his, af- 
ter this assertion, and Mr. Jackson's principles are not questioned. 

But 2dly. If no such usage had before existed, here were special 
reasons for the adoption of such a rule. 

Great-Britain, through Mr. Erskine, had tendered a full satis- 
faction for the Chesapeake affair, which had been accepted by us — 
but owing to his neglect of demanding our answer and agreeing to 
it beforehand, our government had inserted the most affrontiiie 
language ever introduced into a diplomatick correspondence. Was 
it then unreasonable, that Great-Britain should be unwilling again 
to confide in our delicacy — again to repose in our sense of decorum I 

But lastly, hei'ie was a serious controversy about to be adjusted, 
here was a trespass on our rights about to be compromised by the 
payment of money, and the acknowledgment of wrong. 

Did any prudent man ever pay his money, or tender his satis- 
faction without seeing his discharge, without reading his receipt 
in full ? If such imprudence does not occur in private life, how 
could it be expected of a nation which had no extraordinary rea- 
son to confide in our good mil ? 



35 ^^7 

But Mr, Smith and Mr. Madison so far from confiding in these 
positive assurances of Mr. Jackson of his /towers in relation to the 
Chesapeake, and of his being clothed with the fullest authority, 
continue in the future correspondence and in the Message after 
the whole negotiation was closed, to insinuate that he had no com- 
petent power — that he had made no specifick offer, and that his 
intimations were accompanied with inadmissible pretensions on 
this point. 

I shall hereafter distinctly examine these pretensions which arc 
declared inadmissible, but at present my object is simply to shew, 
and that I have fully done, that our Cabinet have in very indeco- 
rous language contradicted Mr. Jackson's most solemn asseverations, 
and misrepresented in a glaring manner his observations. 

As to the third charge brought against Great-Britain, that of 
having made no proposals for the repeal of the orders in council, 
it is the only one in which our Government have not come to a 
flat contradiction of Mr. Jackson's declarations. 

But it will be seen that they do not stand on better ground as 
to this charge. 

It is true that Mr. Jackson did not come authorized to receive or 
to make any other proposals for the repeal of the orders in council. 

And what are tlie reasons ? The most respectful to us, the most 
justifiable in themselves. They are, 

1st. Because it would hijve been indelicate and indeed affrontive 
to renew the propositions which, although they probably first 
emanated from our Cabinet, we had seen fit to disavow and reject. 

2dly. Because we, claiming the repeal of a measure which Great- 
Britain had adopted as a just retaliation on her enemy, she had a 
right to expect that we should propose a substitute of resistance to 
her enemy which would take the place of her orders, and would 
fulfil the duty Avhich she contended we were bound to perform in 
order to entitle us to our neutral privileges. 

But lastly, and the most important reason of all, was, that she 
had in repeated instances tried the effect of propositions in vain. 
In the case of Mr. Rose and Mr. Erskine she had stated her terms , 
and as soon as they were known we had demanded something 
higher which she could not grant — besides, as the last proposal 
came from her and we had rejected it, she had a right to expect a 
proposal from us." 



No. IX. 



Mr. Smith's misrepi^sentation of Mr. Jackson's Let- 
ters continued: — and some Remarks upon the Principles 
pretended to he set up hy Great-Britain agai?ist the 
United States. 

WE pass now to the examination of the la.^t charge preferred 
by Mr. Smith against Mr. Jackson : — , 



/?^^ 



56 



" yViai he had been instructed to insist ic/ion the three conditions 
0*' Mr. Canninif, which had been declared by our Government in- 
ad7}iissidte." 

As this charge is still persevered in, and as it is made the chief 
cause of complaint against the British nation, it is of great im- 
portance to ascertain whether Mr. Jackson was directed to per- 
severe in these claims ; recollecting, however, that there is 
abundant evidence that our Government authorised Great-Britain 
in the,y?r.9^ instance to expect they v/ould be conceded. 

Mr. Jackson in his first letter of Oct. 9th, in answer to this 
charge explicilij' declares, " yViat he was not authorised to renew 
these proposals which had been found to be unaccefitable to us, and 
that he could not ha-ve made such a proposal inasmuch as it would 
be inconsistent with his other declaration, that he was not instruct- 
ed to make any proposal whatever on this subject, but to await the 
Jirojiosilions which our cabinet might see Jit to make to Great-Bri- 
tain." — Mr. Smith, in his answer to this positive and explicit, 
clear and unambiguous declaration, that Mr. Jackson was ?iot di- 
rected to persevere in these claims, replies. That he perceives 
that any agreemeyit on this subject must include a stifiulation on 
the part of the United States to relinquish the trade with the ene- 
mies colonies even in branches not hitherto interrupted by British 
orders for capture, and also a sanction to the enforcing of an act of 
Congress by the British JVavy." — Mr. Smith adds, " That a known 
determination on the part of his Britannic Majesty to adhere to 
such exivaordinsivy pretensions would preclude the hope of success- 
in the negotiation." 

It is impossible to conceive of a more palpable contradiction, or 
a more unfair representation ; and one can hardly conceive any 
other motive for such conduct than the wish to produce, not only 
a collision Avith Great-Britain, but a prejudice in the minds of the 
uninformed part of the people of the United States. 

Mr. Jackson Avould have been justified in replying to this insult 
in warm and intemperate language ; but he did not lose sight of 
the dignity of his office, and the interests of both countries to pre- 
serve a good understanding. To this flat contradiction he mod- 
estly replied, in his letter of October 23d — 

" That his government ordered him not to renew proposals which 
have been already declared here to be unacceptable, but to receive 
and discuss proposals on the part of the United States, and eventually 
to conclude a convention between the two countries. It is not of 
course intended to call upon me to state as a preliminary to negotia- 
tion, what is the whole extent of those instructions." 

From this mild and temperate answer it follows, that he was 
not instructed to insist upon the offensive conditions, but that he 
had a full power to conclude a treaty, of which though he could 
not brfore hand state the uUnost limits, yet it was fairly to be in- 
ferred they wcrc/ar short of the conditions which had been de- 
clared ftTensive, and upon which he was not authorised to insist. 



37 



/^^ 



So far we have unequivocal proof of the anxiety of Great-Britain 
to close with us n/ion atiy terms ; and this disclosure of her dis- 
position, and of the full powers of Mr. Jackson to conclude a final 
adjustment of all differences, produced the very laconic and in- 
sulting letter from Mr. Smith, which put an end to the conferences. 

In answer to the second solemn asseveration of Mr. Jackson, that 
Great-Britain insisted on no conditions which our Government 
had deemed inadmissible, Mr. Smith replies on the 1st of No- 
vember — 

" That it is understood that his Majesty perseveres in requiring 
as indis/iensable conditoins an entire relinquishment of the colonial 
trade, and also a permission to the British 7iavy to aid in the exc' 
cuting a law of Congress." 

This it has been shewn was absolutely false ; and one would 
naturally expect to find no small degree of temper in Mr. Jack- 
son's reply — but he cautiously abstained from imitating the inde- 
corous example of Mr. Smith : — Reciting, therefore, at large this 
off'ensive clause in Mr. Smith's letter, he says — 

" This same statement is contained in your letter of the 9th inst. 
and represented as the substance of our previous conferenc£s. In 
my cmswcr^ I took the liberty of shewing that such a supposition 
•was erroneous, and I have looked in vain to my letter of the 23rf 
to find any suggestion of that nature. I believe, therefore, that by 
reference to my two letters you ivill find that the statement now 
AGAIN brought forward is contained in neither of them, that it made 
no part of my conversations with you, and that I have in no way 
given room to suppose that I ever made such a statement at all.^^ 

Our language, though remarkable for its strength, does not 
furnish the means of a more direct and positive denial of a charge ; 
and one would have supposed it impossible for any man, with 
honest views, to persist in it after such unequivocal declarations. 
But Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison have disappointed us — they rely 
more upon the folly and blindness of their partizans than one could 
have conceived to be possible. 

In spite of all this evidence we are still told, with the most un- 
paralleled indelicacy, that Mr. Jackson was directed to persist in 
pretensions which our government had repeatedly declared to be 
inadmissible. 

In reviewing the whole correspondence, we discover this to be 
the result, that Mr. Jackson was not authorised to insist on the 
conditions stated in Mr. Canning's letter, although they were 
known to have been previously agreed to by our own officers ; — 
that on the contrary, he Avas ordered to receive our proposals and 
fully empowered by special authority to conclude a treaty on such 
terms as should be mutually advantageous ; — and further, that the 
events of the war had rendered the conditions stated in Mr. Can- 
ning's letter less important to both parties, and therefore it was 
to be expected that Great-Britain would more readily consent to 



\l^v 



38 



modify them. — All this is stated by the British Minister ; and al- 
though from our reception of all former proposals he could not 
see any benefit, nor could he be expected to state before hand the 
full extent of his instructions, yet from what he intimates it is 
unavoidably to be presumed he was directed to agree to something 
more agreeable to us than the former conditions. 

It was precisely the discovery of this full Jioiver and of this dis- 
position to concession, which produced Mr. Jackson's dismissal. 
Let any impartial man peruse this ,whole correspondence, and 
he will find an invariable disposition to seek an occasion of collision 
on the part of our cabinet, and as sedulous a desire on the part of 

Mr. Jackson to avoid it One thing he must particularly notice, 

that although Mr. Jackson's offensive insinuations (if any man can 
discover them) must be found in the early part of the correspon- 
dence, yet there was not the slightest intimation of discontent on 
our part until Mr. Jackson's letter of the 23d of October disclosing 
his full powers and removing every possible obstacle to a final, 
full and satisfactory adjustment. 

It is then proved, that the sharp, irritSiimg iniroductory letter of 
our Secretary of State, comprising four articles of charge against 
the British Minister, was perfectly refuted in the subsequent cor- 
respondence ; but notwithstanding the British Minister's allega- 
tions they were offensively adhered to. I anticipate, that those 
outrageous partizans who exclusively arrogate to themselves the 
virtue of patriotism, will here interrupt nie by saying, that the 
declarations of our Ministers are more to be relied upon by a True 
American than that of " Cojienhagen Jackson." — I grant every 
thing on this subject to national prejudice — I agree, which is as 
much as can be asked of me, that on an indifferent subject, Mr. 
Jackson, though supported by fact and evidence., is not to be cred- 
ited by an Anierican Patriot in opposition to Mr. Smith unsup- 
ported by any proof ; but still I must humbly contend for the 
peace of our country, for the avoidance of the horrors of war, that 
where the point oi discordance consists in what are or are not the 
pretensions ufion which Mr. Jackson does insist^ that his declaration 
solemnly repeated as to the extent of his pretensions is conclusive 
€vide7ice of those pretensions. 

We shall now state one or two other instances of Mr. Smith's 
offensive, and as far as we can see, unprovoked harshness towards 
Mr. Jackson, the representative of his Britannic Majesty. 

Mr. Smith, most unaptly and unfortunately, had cited a case 
from Vattel, to shew that Great-Britain had no right to reject the 
arrangement with Mr. Erskine — That case was, unhappily, most 
directly against our side : It went to prove, that " where a bargain 
was made by a minister in virtue oifuil powers it could not be re- 
jected without solid and weighty reasons." 

• Mr. Jackson turned both parts of this quotation against Mr. 
Smith, and with unanswei'able force : — 



39 /^/ 

1st. That Mr. Erskine had not as Mr. Vattel sii/i/ioses in his 
quotation, full powers. 

2diy. That his Majesty had solid and weighty reasons for the 
rejection — to wit, the total violation o/" instructions — the failure to 
obtain any of the conditions or objects expected by the agreement. 

How does Mr. Smith reply to these forcible oljjections ? — By 
a sarcasm which partakes as much of temper as of weakness — 

" I understand, Sir, (says he to Mr. Jackson) for the first time, 
that you object to Mr. Erskine's iva?it of full powers. If that be 
an objection, the same a/i/ilies to yourself, and we ought not to have 
heard you as long as wc have done, because you have exhibited no 
full powers." 

This was an admission of the principle ; for if it had been true 
that a minister plenipotentiary ex officio had a right in all cases 
to bind his sovereign, it would have been the most natural, the 
most perfect, and certainly a less insulting answer. 

But Mr. Smith's reply was defective on another ground, as 
proved by the correspondence between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. 
Hammond, cited by me in a former number : — For though a full 
power is requisite to conclude and sign, yet a general letter of 
credence is sufficient to negociate. Thus in common life we are 
satisfied to make a bargain with a reputed attorney, but when 
we come to take the deed or contract, we require and we exam- 
ine the letter of attorney — In this case Mr. Jackson was only pav- 
ing the way to a treaty : — It was therefore premature and indeco- 
rous to demand his powers : — It was still more than that to de- 
mand them in so taunting a manner ; — but, what is still worse, 
Mr. Jackson declares that he had long before this verbally stated 
to Mr. Smith that he possessed such full powers. To these very 
irritating remarks of Mr. Smith's, which one would have ex- 
pected would have roused the utmost resentment of a haughty 
man, as Mr. Jackson has been represented by our democi^ats, he 
calmly replied, in his letter of the 4th of November — 

" That he ivas sur/iriscd at the transition by which it appeared 
to Mr. Smith that this part of the subject was connected with the 
authority empowering him to negociate with Mr. S?nith. It will 
?iot, (says Mr. Jackson) escape ijour recollection that I informed 
you, at a very early period, that in addition to the usual credential 
letter his Majesty had been pleased to invest me with a full power 
■under the great seal of his kingdom, for the express purpose of 
concluding a treaty of convention. I well remember your testify- 
ing ijour satisfaction at the circumstance, and I now add, that 
whenever it suits your convenience I am ready to exchange my 
inW ^owcY against that with which you shall be provided for the 
progress of the negociation." 

Thus we see that the lacerating taunt of Mr. Smith was not 
only unprovoked, but in face of a positive knowledge, that Mr. 
Jackson was furnished with special and plenary powers. 



One would imagine that it would be impossible, in a free coun- 
try, a country enjoying- the privileges of the press, for a Minister 
to question, after such a declaration, Mr. Jackson's powers, which 
such Minister had a right at the -very moment to demand and ex- 
amine. — But we shall find that it is more easy to palm off an impos- 
ture in this Enlightened Country, than we could imagine ; — and 
the result of this affair will shew, that even when detected, its 
effects on the authors of it, will not be perceptible, unless it be 
to raise them in the estimation of their devoted partizans. 

After this offer of Mr. Jackson to shew his full fionvcrsj Mr. 
Smith says in his letter to Mr. Pinkney, of Nov. 23. 

" That although Mr. JackaOJi had given us to tinderstand that 
the ordinary credentials^ such alone as he delivered^ could not bind 
his government^ in such a case, his jirojiosal had neither been fire- 
ceded by, nor accompanied with the exhibition of other coinmission or 
full flow er.''^ 

In this paragraph two ideas are endeavoured to be conveyed — 

1st. That Mr. Jackson's objection to Mr. £rskine's ordinary 
credentials as the Joundation of a treaty, was an unfounded one, 
although Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison must know that it was fier- 
fectly correct and sufifwrted by our own conduct in the case of Mr. 
Hammond. 

2dly. That Mr. Jackson really had no other fiower because he 
had not exhibited any. 

If any man, after reading the above, can find any means of get- 
ting rid of a direct and indecent contradiction, we shall, for the 
honour of our Cabinet, be happy to see them pointed out. 

Amidst these charges of perfidy and falsehood, advanced so 
liberally against the British Cabinet and Minister, one loses sight 
of a great number of offensive and rude clauses and injurious sug- 
gestions. It would be hardly worth our time and the public pa- 
tience to notice the strong and offensive paragi^aph which notifi- 
ed Mr. Jackson of his indiscoverable and indescribable offence ; 
but there is one sentence which, for the honor of our country, I 
hope, (some one will be able) to explain differently from its ap- 
parent meaning. In Mr. Smith's letter (page 81, of the printed 
documents) he thus wi'ites to Mr. Pinkney — 

" You will fierceive that throughout the early stages of the cor- 
rrsfiondence, this case (that of the Chesapeake^ was in some re- 
sfiects impropei'ly confounded with, in other improperly sejiarated 
from that of the Orders in Council." 

Now in the name of candour, what course was Mr. Jackson to 
take ? If he connected it with the Orders in Council, it was imfirofi- 
er : — If he sc/iarated it from them, he was equally m fault. Is it 
not then clear that Mr. Jackson could not satisfy our government 
at any rate ? This we have long known, and this the present doc- 
uments prove beyond all contradiction — They who run, may read 
it — and even the blind may perceive it. 



41 /^3 

\Vc. have now finished this part of our subject — and we flatter 
ourselves redeemed the pled^^e we had given to the public. It is 
obvious from what has been said, that Great-Britain adheres to no 

offensive propositions in relation to her Orders in Council : That 

those Orders rest, as they always have done, on ground which 
our own Government have admitted to be correct in principle, 
that of retaliation on her enemy: — That Great-Britain was will- 
ing to repeal them on the terms which her Minister assured her 
weve Jiro/wscd hy us: — That finding we would not admit them 
she will not renew or insist upon them — that Mr. Jackson's rea- 
soning upon them in his letters is simply to convince us that they 
arc 7iot now imfiortant to either them or us : — And the fair infer- 
ence is, that when we propose any terms short of them, and yet 
amounting to a resistance to the French decrees^ Great-Britain 
will accept theni. That she had a right to expect as much as this 
from us is certain, because Mr. Jefterson told Congress, and his 
party boasted last ijear, that we had made her such an offer : Such 
an offer, however, never has been ?nade and never nvill be : and 
the discovery that Mr. Jackson will agree to such a firofiosal^ is 
the true reason why the negotiation is now broken off. 

If then, as it appears, Great-Britain does not insist upon any 
pretensions as conditions for the repeal of her orders in council 
to which we cannot subscribe ; if she places it simfily on the 
ground of an effectual resistance to the decrees of France, which 
we have voted shall not be submitted to, let us examine if there 
are any other pretensions of her's which should be a barrier to an 
accommodation. 

Let us here premise, that in national controversies where there 
is neither judge, jury, nor umpire, perfect justice is not to be ex- 
pected. Neither party ought to expect, however thev may claim, 
to obtam every thing they may deem right. Something ought on 
both sides to be sacrificed to harmony ; and the nation which in- 
sists upon the attainment of all its pretensions cannot be consid- 
ered as being honestly desirous of peace. 

Mr. Madison tells us that Great-Britain in the affair of the 
Chesapeake insists upon pretensions which had been declared 
inadmissible. As this is the only point on which Great-Britain 
makes any pretensions, or insists on any conditions, as we have . 
shewn, and as^ she most certainly does in this case insist on two 
preliminary points, it is important to see how far these are un- 
reasonable, and how far they are good causes for hazarding our 
peace. 

1st. She insists, « That in the record of the satisfaction which ive 
shall agree to accefit, a memorandum shall be made that our Proc- 
lamation interdicting the entry of British shijis of war has been re- 
pealed." 

This Mr. Madison in his covered language entitles. « J demand 
that the first step should firocced from us." 



/9^ 42 

This is nut so. It is now admitted on all sides that the act of 
the British Admiral was unauthorised ; and of course his Govern- 
ment were only responsible for disavowal and reparation. 

The law of nature, of nations, of common courtesy, and the 
common law of the land, all require that in such a case, a recourse 
should first be had to the Master of the ofTcnding servant, and 
after he refuses to do justice reprisals may take place. 

In this instance we took the reparation into our oum hands : 
7rc inflicted the first punishment : — IVe deprived Great-Britain 
of her rights ; for it was her rii^ht to enter our ports so long as 
her enemy was permitted so to do. 

It was pretended that this was a mere measure of precaution : — ■ 
If it were so, it ought to have been revoked as soon as Great- 
Britain declared her disapprobation of the act of her servant. No 
danger any longer existed any more than at the moment when 
we suffered the proclamation to expire. 

But with Great-Britain it was different. It was absolutely im- 
possible for her to o^ej- afiij terms whatever so long as this rod 
was held z« terrore?n over her head. On t/iis point Mr. Rose's 
mission terminated. And let us ask every man of honour, if com- 
pensation was demanded of him for any act of his servant's, 
whether he would give it while the complaining party threatened to 
chastise him ? 

Between nations this is impossible : And of all the nations in 
the world, and of all the administrations which ever existed in any 
nation, ours, one of the most captious, ought to be the last to find 
fault with this objection. 

It is, I confess, truly a//om; of hoJior ; and the only question 
is, Which is right ? I admit that neither party which is in the 
right, ought to sacrifice this point of honor, unless for the sake 
of preserving peace, which is more interesting than any point 
of etiquette. But in this case we cafi acknowledge the repeal 
of the Proclamation without dishonour, because we never pre- 
tended that it was a hostile measure ; but on the other hand, 
Great-Britain, who considered it en insult, could not agree to treat 
with us without a formal acknowledgment of the repeal. But, 
says IVIr. Smith, this adherence to punctilio is the more unrea- 
sonable in Great-Britain, because it was well known that the Proc- 
lamation had exjiired of itself. He was I think not aware of the 
natural answer to this, which would have been made if he had not 
sealed Mr. Jackson's lips, that if the Proclamation had expired, 
there could be less reason for ajm^/ojz disposed to peace to refuse to 
note that fact in the proceedings. And why this delicacy on the 
part of Great-Britain ? Because she could not compensate us so 
long as the record of so hostile a measure remained against her. 

The only other inadmissible pretension of Great-Britain which 
our Cabinet urge is, 

The reser-vation of Great-Britain, that she will not pay the bounty 
10 such of the sailors wounded in the Chesapeake, nor will she re- 



43 /f<- 

iurn such of them as she has taken, who may appear to have been 
deserters /rom his Majesti/s service j or natural born subjects of 
/lis Britannic Majesty. 

Now without entering into the question so fully settled by the 
American people, that they Avill not go into a contest for British 
sailors, we would simply reiTiark, that an objection of this sort 
comes with a very ill grace from a Government, one of whose 
captains last year entered the British territories, seized a school- 
master as a deserter in the act of giving instruction in a peaceful 
village, shot him dead upon the spot, and to which officer, after a 
formal Court Martial, his sword has been returned with honor. 
If this does not amount to a claim of deserters, we confess wc 
sjo not know what does. 



No. X, 



Mr. Mjdison's conduct toxvards France, and that of 
France towards us. The authors 'Vindication and 
conclusion. 

" France has ships, and we have men." 

Mr. Jefferson. 

« France wants money, and must have it." 

Mr. Madison to Mr. Randolph. 
FROM the authors of such sentiments, one would not look 
for any exhibition of impartiality, or for any expressions of indig- 
nation towards France, for her accumulated wrongs — ^but from a 
man of Mr. Madison's prudence and talents, one Avould have ex- 
pected some appearance of decorum, some shew of independence, 
some token of an insincere desire to preserve a nominal impartial- 
ity. In reviewing the President's late message, with its accom- 
paniments, we are astonished to find the mask which even Mr. 
Jefferson designed to wear, superciliously thrown away. — Mr. 
Madison, secure of his office and of his popularity, disdains any 
labour, even to save appearances, and while his speech breathes 
nothing but hostility, and war towards Great-Britain, it is worse 
than silent as to the wrongs, the injuries and insults of France. 

The proofs of this partiality have been too long and too fatally 
felt, to require a very minute display of them at this moment. I 
shall confine myself to a few instances which have recently occurred. 
The documents which accompanied the President's message, fur- 
nish the first proof. While the correspondence with the British 
Cabinet and our complaints against Great-Britain, occupy eighty 
EIGHT pages, all the evidence of our intercourse with France is 
comprised in seven. While every document in relation to the 
British controversy is communicated at large, even down to the 
notes of the Secretary of Legation, while some parts of Mr. Ers- 
kine's letters are extracted and published tivice in the same jiam' 



t^,6 



a 



fijilet in order that in one form or the other they might be sure to 
meet the publick eye, some of the publications of the letters of 
Gen. Armstrong to our Government, and of Mr. Champagny to 
General Armstrong, are mutilated extracts, and the most material 
parts are sn/i/iressed. This is not all — whole letters and the 7vhole 
history of our late Negotiation with France are kept behind the 
curtain. 

This conduct is the more \mpardonable, inasmuch as the publick 
expressed its just indignation and its merited jealously on the at- 
tempt to suppress the French Documents last winter — How did 
we in that case obtain a disclosure of the disgraceful nature of our 
Negotiations with France ? By the voluntary exhibition of the Ex- 
ecutive ? No. The suppressed documents published in Boston, 
dropped down upon us we know not how — the light flashed upon 
us, we know not whence ! 

And are the American people to be always kept in this state 
of palpable blindness ? Are our Negotiations with France, such 
deeds of darkness that even Avhen all hopes are gone, when abor- 
tive, when dead born, they are to be buried without examination ? 

If such shameless suppressions would have answered in ordinary 
times, shall we submit to them when mc are called upon to take 
the solemn alternative oi war or disgrace ? Shall we seethe gaunt- 
let thrown to Great-Britain, under the pretext of insults which we 
cannot perceive — shall we see her envoy dismissed, while cL-thed 
with full powers to complete an adjustment, declaring that he is 
not ordered to insist on pretensions which we have deemed inad- 
missible, but is ready to receive and discuss our own proposals, 
and yet not be allowed to examine the conduct of France, with 
whom both our own and their minister allege the door of ne- 
gotiation is for ever closed ? 

The publick have been amused the last summer, with repeated 
messages to France— several vessels have been despatched thither 
— did they not carry remonstrances, demands, or proposals 1 If so, 
where are they ? Why arc they suppressed ? While a negotiation 
is pending, reasons of state may require secrecy — but this is not 
the case. General Armstrong, in the mutilated extract of his let- 
ter of 16th Sept. last, declares that Mr. Champagny's note, which 
I shall \)YesQi\\.\y consider, \«, *■*■ a. dejinitive ariswer to our proposals" 
— This note is not only definitive, but it is insulting in the extreme. 
It is not only a. flat refusal, but it is a most cutting and sarcastic 
taunt. Why should we not know then what these proposals were, 
which Mr. Armstrong says lie has made ? If they were reasonable 
and moderate, ovir resentment ought to be the more excited against 
France. Why then attempt to rouse the passions altogether on 
one side ? Shall it be said that as we mean to join one party against 
the other and not to fght both, we ought to suppress the wrongs 
of our intended ally in order to inake our Union more solid and 
complete ? But the people have «not yet decided vjhich party they 
-xw'iWjoin, and they wish to have the whole conduct of both displayed 
iaii'ly by the Government. 



45 >^^ 

If the Government continue to smother the wrong-s and injuries 
of France, the People will state an aciount for themselves — If 
Great-Britain be charged by Mr. Madison, with perfidy because 
she refused to ratify the act of an unauthorised agent made in vio- 
lation of his instructions, which 'voere^ ive admit in fiubstance made 
known to us. — The people will not forget that with Napoleon Bon- 
aparte we have made a treaty signed with his own sign manual, 
which guarantees to us the right to carry even British goods on 
British account — a treaty which declares that no blockade shall be 
laid by either party unless the same be actual — the people will not 
forget that it is i ot even pretended that we have violated this 
treaty — it is not even suggested in Mr. Champagny's most imfiudent 
letter. Like the treaty before made with France, in which we 
were told that France " could only find a real disadvantage in ad- 
hering to the terms of the treaty," so Mr. Champagny tells us, 
that the Emperor's decrees are the effect "of the necessity of re- 
Jirisals which circu7nstances im/iose." 

It is alledged by Bonaparte's good friends in this country, that 
the French decrees arc retaliatory merely. Grant them this point 
solely for the sake of argument. Still France is fiej-Jidious, because 
in Nov. 1806, when her Berlin decree passed, Great-Britain did 
not enforce any firinci/iles but what she enforced when our treaty 
with France was 7nade. If, then, Avith the knowledge of the British 
rule of 1756, and of the British rules of blockade, she stipulated to 
permit us to carry British goods, and 7i€ver to stop us by nominal 
blockades, she is guilty of base perfidy by her Berlin and INIilan 
decrees. 

If we are told that Mr. Jackson, the British envoy, insulted us-, 
by repeating in nearly the same words a concession made by Mr. 
Smith, our own minister, what shall we say to Mr. Champagny's 
haughty note in which he puts an end to all our negotiations, by 
announcing his Imperial Majesty's " invariable determination ?" 

To our complaints, that our treaty had been violated, our ships 
captured and seized in French ports, and' on the high seas, to the 
amount of twenty-five millions, our seamen imprisoned as enemies, 
our vessels burnt without any form of trial, and our property con- 
fiscated in neutral countries, Mr. Champagny replies by a discourse 
on the Emjieror's morality. Irony of this sort to a bleeding, suf- 
fering, and insulted nation, would have roused the Roman pride 
or the feelings of our fathers — as well might the abandoned female 
in a brothel deliver a discourse upon modesty, the pick-pocket 
irddress a sermon upon integrity to the man whom he had plun- 
dered, or the murderer boast to the expiring victim of his revenge, 
the gentlencs and suavity of his character. 

Yet Mr. Madison communicates this most insolent letter to Con- 
gress with only the equivocal remark, " that the posture of our 
affairs with France does not correspond with the measures taken 
on the part of the United States to elVect a favorable change." 

But let us be a little more explicit upon the insulting nature ot" 
this letter. 



/^K 46 

In 1806, Bonaparte, in violation of our treaty with him, declared 
the British islands in a state of blockade. 

He could not do this by way of retaliation justly : 1st Because 
Great-Britain did not the7i enforce any principles which she had not 
enforced during the whole war, and at the moment of our treaty 
with France. 

2dly. Because we had not violated the treaty on our part. 

3dly. Because there had been no previous complaint to us, nor 
any demand that we would resist any pretensions of Great-Britain, 
all which Avould be requisite to make the retaliation just. 

It was, in fact, avowed to be the consequence of a resolution of 
Bonaparte to destroy Great-Britain by the destrvictionof her trade. 

We remonstrated against these French decrees, and Mr. Ai'm- 
strong so early as 1807, declared to Mr. Champagny, "that te 
appeal to our treaty or the law of nations as it respects France 
would be literally afijiealing to the dead." 

This was the right sort of spirit. What is Mr. Champagny's 
answer to this remonstrance ? As if France had been an angel in 
purity., and as if she had not been the confessed aggressor, he 
replies, " The right of pretension of blockading by proclamation, 
rivers, and coasts, is as monstrous (revoltante) as absurd." 

When we had been persevering in our remonstrances for this 
very conduct for three years, we are gravely told, that such beha- 
viour is very provoking and very unjust, and that France is in 
princi/ile exceedingly ojijwsed to it. This cost France one hour's 
labour, of Mr. Champagny, and the expense of the paper and pos- 
tage, which is well repaid by twenty-five millions of our property 
seized upon this very principle. 

Again — In 1807, a French Admiral seized a number of American 
vessels on the ocean, and burnt them without trial. This was the 
first time such a practice had ever been attempted. 

Mr. Armstrong mildly remonstrated, or rather asked, whether it 
was understood that France countenanced such an unheard of 
proceeding ? 

We had no answer to this demand till this letter of Mr. Cham- 
pagny, who sarcastically tells us, " that a merchant vessel is a 
moving colony., to do violence to such a vessel by searches, visits, 
or other arbitrary acts of authority, is to violate the territory of a 
colony." 

COMMEjYTAR Y. 

It appears then that though the French will not allow the princi- 
ple of searching or visiting a merchant vessel, they make no scruple 
to burn the colony of a neutral state, and to sink the territory of a 
friend. They have made a still better reply to Mr. Armstrong by 
issuing we7y orders, to burn every vessel which would not bear the 
expense of carrying in — which orders have been actually executed 
in several instances. 

Yet Mr. Madison is silent as to both these modest replies of 
France. 



47 /ff 



Still further — On the 24th of November 1806, an order was 
passed by Bourienne, minister of France at Hamburs^, that all 
English merchandize/'3w/(C3w.«oi"-!:'frA<7ow^/;7.§-, should be confiscated. 
Similar decrees were issued in the free cities of Lubeck and Bre- 
men by France. In Aut^ust, 1807 the same thint^ took place at 
Leghorn, and on the 19th Sept. 1807, in the Papal territory. Bona 
fide American property was seized under these decrees upon land 
in neutral and friendly states. 

Mr. Madison directed Mr. Annstrong to complain of this con- 
duct, and the first and only answer we received after waiting three 
years is in these words — " In all her concjucsts France has resfiected 
private firofierty — The warehouses and the shops have remained 
to llic owners." 

It would strike any person as fabulous who did not understand 
the French diplomatic character, to hear that any man could have 
the audacity to reply to the very fwr-^on who had so often com- 
plained to him of tlic seizure not of jirivate property, merely, but 
of netitral property — not in an enemy's country solely, but in a 
Friendly state, "that France respects even an enemy's private 
•Jirofierty in an enemy's country." — Mr. Amistrong should have 
replied that if that was true^ it would be better and more safe to 
be the enemy of France than her friend. 

But as applied to her enemies, the falsehood and effrontery is 
not the less palpable — Have we forgotten the Bulletins issued after 
the perfidious entry into Spain, in which the Emperor boasts of 
his having obtained 50,000 bales of Spanish avooI ? — From whom 
was this seized ? From Individuals, his allies, the S/ianiardsy 
whose only crime was their loyalty to their legitimate sovereign, 
whom Bonaparte had perfidiously kidnappod and violently de- 
throned — Have we forgotten his profaning the altars of the Al- 
mighty, and sacrilegiously robbing the sanctuaries of the Most 
High ? Will he with his infidel spirit, contend that this was not 
private pyo/ierty, and therefore was the fair object of plunder ? 
We have not forgotten the robbery of the sacramental plate in Por- 
tugal, and the indignation which it produced in the minds of the 
Portuguese, when the fortune of arms put these robbers into the 
power of the injured and indignant sufferers. 

We should do injustice to France, however, if we omitted to no- 
tice one instance of her frankness in this communication of Mr. 
Champagny. — He assures us that when France shall have regain- 
ed her Maritime power, when she shall be able to render her 
mandates universally respected, she will respect the liberty of 
the seas in as great a degree as she does the liberties of the na- 
tions whom she conquers on land ! ! — We have then the rule of her 
justice — she will regard the rights of private property on the ocean 
as much as she has heretofore done upon the Continent I I 1 

There is one other idea upon this point which we would present 
to our readers before we quit this subject, and which may account 
for tlie tameness of the language of Mr. Madison. 



Before our Embargo was imposed it will be recollected, that 
Gen. Armstrong stated to the Americans in France, that such a 
measure would undoubtedly take place in America — Letters from 
France and Holland from private Merchants to their Correspon- 
dents in this Country, confidently spoke of such a measure before 
it had been even suggested in our country — A despatch vessel ar- 
rived from France, and in three days after the embargo was im- 
posed — Mr. Masters, a democratick member of Congress, declar- 
ed, "that the hand of Napoleon was in this thing." Our venera- 
ble watchman. Col. Pickering, suggested to us the same idea — 
we now have the proof that it was agreeable to France from this 
letter of Count Champagny — He declares "that the Emperor a/i- 
plaiidcd this geyicrous determination of renouncing all commerce 
rather than acknowledge the dominion of the tyrants of the seas." 

A like omen, and a similar prophecy has occurred in the ;/ireseni 
case — A Senator of France, in a recent publication in France, has 
declared " that the United States are about to join the general co- 
alition against Great-Britain — that as a pledge of that intention, their 
Nevv^ Ambassador had reached Copenhagen, and that Mr. Jackson 
had been dismissed. 

It is a singular fact that a vessel from France did arrive in the 
United States, and her despatches from our minister in France did 
reach Washington about two or three days before the dismissal of 
Mr. Jackson. 

That such circumstances should so frequently cowczir, is to every 
impartial man extremely suspicious, and we can no longer wonder 
at the supfiression of all the late negotiations with France, and the 
studied silence of Mr. Madison on that subject. 

Having now finished the developement of the subject which I 
had originally proposed, it remains for me to vindicate the mo- 
tives of this public appeal against our own administration. 

It would be affectation to conceal, that so deep rooted are the 
prejudices of our citizens against any impartial display of the 
questions between us and Great-Britain, that any writer who may 
undertake it, however pure may be his motives, and however well 
founded his arguments, is sure to incur the most violent invective 
from Otic class of citizens, a cool disapprobation from another, and 
but a feeble and timid support from the rest. 

This is inevitable from the nature of our government, in which 
it will be always an unwelcome task to stem the popular prejudi- 
ces ; that our citizens have strong antipathies against Great-Britain, 
and are indifferent to the insults and injuries of France, the history 
of the last twenty years most abundantly proves. 

The writer of this examination cannot, he does not hope to turn 
the current of these prejudices. It would require more than mor- 
tal power to arrest the progress of such inveterate prepossessions. 
But there arc moments like the present in which the imminence 
of the danger may rouse the thoughtless, and stimulate the lethar- 
gick. Even ti-uth may at such a period hope to find a reluctant 
admission. 



4^ ••. .. ^oi 

I do not address those base and sordid minds who deny the 
RIGHT of a citizen of a free country to address the understand- 
ings of his fellow countrymen at such critical moments, upon 
questions between ourselves and foreign nations — Such men arc 
formed and fitted only to be slaves. In this respect many, if not 
most of our people are several centuries behind their ancestors, 
the British nation, in the estimation of the fieo/ile's rights. 

In Great-Britain, that land of slavei^ and corruption, as our sons 
of liberty call her, the press has no such restraint — not only in 
the ^cYioA^ fir ece ding a war, but during a nvar itself, the opponents 
of that war can, with impunity, and without censure, question the 
justice of the cause, and denounce tlic motives of the administra- 
tion which brought it on. 

Who will dare to question the virtue of Col. Barre and Mr. 
Burke, or of lord Chatham, in their opposition to the American war, 
or in their severity towards the ministry during that war ? 

What democrat in our country ever censured Mr. Fox, whose 
speeches they published and praised for his hostility to the war 
against France both before and after its commencement ? 

And, in more recent instances, who censured lord Grenville, 
Mr. Baring, or Mr. Brougham, for their attack on their own min- 
istry in the questions between us and Great-Britain ? 

Base indeed, and worthy only of being the slaves of a Tyrant, 
must be those men who would so far degrade our national char- 
acter, as to contend that we are unable to hear both sides of the 
question without hazard. If, as those people pretend, our argu- 
ments and our remarks are proofs of our devotion to another na- 
tion, and of our contempt or disregai'd for our own country, why 
not expose us to contempt and execration by refiublishing our es- 
says ? Are the people not as capable of judging as these venal 
e^ditors ! 

But there is another class of people who are entitled to more 
respect^ and who enquire, what is the benefit derived to our coun- 
try, by exhibiting the unsoundness of the principles oi our ozyn ad- 
ministration pending a controversy betvvcen us and foreign nations ? 

We answer, our government, like that of Great Britain, is a 
government of opinion, that opinion when once well ascertained 
ought to and must govern our rulers — this is the very foundation 
of a free government. But hoAV is this opinion to be formed or to 
be known ? A member of Congress does not correspond with ten 
persons out of fifty thousand of his constituents — It will be said 
that he carries with him their sentiments, but suppose a question 
arises like this of Mr. Jackson after he leaves home, how is he to 
know tlie public feeling ? We answer — Through the medium of 
the press — that palladium of our rights. — Is all the zeal which we 
have displayed heretofore in favour of the Liberty of the Press a 
mere pretension ? And shall we renounce its privileges at the very 
moment Avhen alone they become important ? In times of peace 
and quiet, it is very immaterial what the press does or does not 
7 



inculcate ; bul in limes of danger and turbulence its value is felt : 
shall it 1)e, then, restrained v/hen it is most wanted ? Shall we be 
permitted to discuss who shall or shall not be constables or clerks 
in a petty village, and be denied the discussion whether our coun- 
try, our lives, and our fortunes shall be put in jeopardy by an un- 
necessary war ? 

This doctrine of the Liberty of the press is strangely managed. 
When the public papers in the c»se of the Chesapeake, and of the 
first unfair and false promulgation of the pretended insult of Mr. 
Jackson, took side with the government, we were then told they 
were the vox dei, and not to be resisted. " The people have ninl- 
Icd it" said the National Intelligencer, " and it must not be op- 
posed." But when these same public presses, recovering from 
the panick, and the effects of misdirected passions, began to ex- 
press a different opinion, they were denounced. The sentiments 
of more sober thought were declared to be the offspring of sedi- 
tious opinions. 

The motives of the foregoing writings were these — It was be- 
lieved that there was a manifest disposition to bring about a rup- 
ture with Great Britain ; it was perceived that the documents fur- 
nished no new and no Jilausiblc occasion for it ; it was known that 
our members of Congress left their respective states before this- 
state of things was understood, and it was deemed important to let 
them know in wdiat light these despatches, and the late conduct 
of our government, were viewed here. It Avas found, moreover, 
that the dismissal of Mr. Jackson might be followed by a declara- 
tion of war against Great Britain, and that the best mode of avoid- 
ing such a calamity would be by uniting the people and the legis- 
latures of the states, the most opposed to such a disastrous mea- 
sure, in legal and constitutional means of averting it. It was, and 
it is still hoped, that if petitions should be presented at the foot of 
Mr. Madison's throne,, he may revoke his determination as to the 
rejection of the Envoy of his Britannick Majesty. It is also hoped 
that Great Britain, notwithstanding the rejection of her Minister 
on frivolous pretences, which is the usual prelude to war, will yet 
be diverted from adopting, as a precautionary step, the seizure of 
our vessels and property, an event which would certainly lead to a 
war,, much to be deplored on both sides. 

The only hope entertained by the writer of this article, is deri- 
ved from the belief that Great Britain understands the policy of 
our Cabinet — that while their feelings and wishes are all on the side 
of France, they do not choose to hazard their fiofiidarity by an un- 
just and unfounded war against Great Britain — that a majority of 
the Eastern States, and two fifths of the others, are opposed to a 
war on such flimsy grounds as have been yet brought forward, and 
so long as luuch deeper, more aggravated wrongs remain wholly 
unatoned for by France. ' 

We hope she knows farther, and avc are sure she estimates 
more seriously the great interests of liberty — that the preservation 



51 ^,^^ %o^ 

of America from the j^rasp of France, is vastly more important 
than any smaller consideration, and that much is to be endured 
lather than to suflTer such an event to take place. 

She will not we are persuaded permit herself to mistake the 
temporary policy of the democratic party, for the real interest and 
feelings of the " American people. She w ill recollect that Great 
Britain had her long Parliament, and her CromwcUs, and France 
her Robcspierres and Marats, but that such ephemeral appear- 
ances are no indication of the general course of National policy. 

It is hoped and believed that the promise made by the writer 
has been in some measure fulfilled. That it has been shewn that 
we had a right to expect such a negotiation and such an issue 
from Mr. Madison's former character. 

That the arrangement of Mr. Erskine was concluded, mala fide, 
without demanding his powers, knowing that such as he did exhibit 
were violated, and accompanied with such aftVontive expressions as 
rendered it certain it would not be accepted. 

That Mr. Jackson is chargeable with no insulting expressions 
Avhich we can discern — with no indecorum towards our Cabinet, 
but that the most harsh and indecorous language has been adopt- 
ed towards him by our Secretary of State. 

That the British Minister and British government have both been 
charged with the most improper conduct in this late negociation, 
without, as far as we can discern, the slightest evidence. 

On the contrary, that the most injurious conduct and the most 
insulting insinuations from France, have been wholly overlooked. 

We owe an apology to the publick for the very incorrect form 
in which these ideas are conveyed. It has been our endeavour to 
present a perspicuous view of the subject, rather than to exhibit it 
in an enticing dress. We are aware that many imperfections and 
inaccuracies will be found in the style, but they have arisen from 
the strong desire which was felt to present this interesting sub- 
ject at an early moment to the publick. 



- X*M 



APPENDIX. 



* Important J^'ote to the Diplomalick Conduct of Mr. 
Madison unveiled — -JSb. IV, 

Full Powers of a Minister necessary in addition to his letters of 
credence. 

TO prove that the ideas suggested in this number, of the total incompetence of a 
general letter of credence to authorise the conclusion of a treaty, are not only cor- 
rect, but founded upon an atithoriiy which iidll not be controverted by the United 
States or by Mr. Madison, I shall insert the correspondence between Mr. Jefferson 
and Mr. Hammond on this subject. 

I think this the more impovi«nt, as an idea has been circulated in this town, found- 
ed, as it is pretended, on the authority of Mr. John Quincy Adams, that our govern- 
ment had no right to demand Mr. Erskine's special powers ; and tliat it would have 
been insolent in them so to have done. Let those av^o have been influenced by this 
opinion, read the following letters, and then answer liow Mr. Madison could be jus- 
tified in not demanding Erskine's full powers ; and how he can^ with any decorum, 
object to the disavo\\ al, by Great-Biitain> of an Act, not merely unauthorised, but 
contrary to positive Instructions. 

" PhUadellMa, Dec. 13, 1793. 
" Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, to Mr. Hammond, Minister Plenipotentiary of 
Great-Britain. % 

"SIR — I have laid befo?-e the President of the United States the letters of Nov. 
30th and Dec. 6th, with which you honoured me, and in consequence thereof, and 
particularly of that part of your letter of Dec. 6th, where you say jou arefiilly au- 
thorised to entev into ». Negotiation, for the purpose of arraw^???^ the Commercial 
Intercourse between the two countries. I have the honour to inform you, that I am 
i-eady to receive a Communication oi your full fioivers for that purpose, at any time 
you may think proper, and to proceed immediately to their object. I have the honoj' 
ito be, JScc. &c. T. JEFFERSON." 

Mr. Hammond, in his replj', says, he is only instructed, not empowered to conclude 
a treaty ; but he coincides in the principle, and adds, that as he is a Minister />/«!- 
ipotentiary, and is instructed, he thinks it sufficient " for the commencement of a pre- 
/iminurji negotiation." 

It will be observed that ]Mr. Hammond had been before accredited as a Minister 
Plenipoten tia ry . 

In proof that Great-Britain adheres to the same principle which Mr. Jefferson set 
up in 1793, against a British Minister, we find that Mr. Jackson, in addition to his 
letters plenipotentiary Kinr\\\v,\\tn\ \\\t],\ a distinct set of full powers, and offered to 
shew them, but our Cabinet declined to meet his ofter. 



NOTE I. 

IN perusing again the very extraordinary letter which Mr. Smidi addressed to 
]\lr. Pinkney on the subject of Mr. Jackson's negotiations, after that minister was 
silenced by the imperative order of our Cabinet, there ai-e several otlier instances of 
juisrepresentiitiori « hieji exhibit no ordinai-y share of meanness under the restricted 
situation of the Brilisli minister — One cannot i'efrain therefore from considering this 
letter as an ap])cal to the pa.ssions and prejudices of (he peoi)!e in a case where the 
display of the whole truth was dreaded. 



53 , ZoS^ 

* •. • 

The firM, that occurs to rnc, is the passionate recital of the affijir of tlic Chesft- 
])eakc — To whom was this addressed ? To Mr. Pinkney w ho had been made ac- 
j|uainted with all the facts aiid all the ar^imcnts, two years since, by Mr. Madison, 
Secretary of Stale — Why then repeat them ? Why repeat them with tliat sort of 
rolouring, which if not a deviation from truth in itself, is intended to produce false 
impressions in others ? Why repeat, that the three sailors detained from the Chesa- 
peake were all Jlmerican rilizens, when the Government t'wk depositions in the 
founty ofBristol in Mas.sachusetts, and hnoiv, that one of them, Daniel Martin, 
w as a native of Bonaire in Spanish America ; that although once hound an apprentice 
in this state, he ab.sconded, and T-oft/H/anT;/ entered the British service — To repeRt 
after this fact w as known, that this man was a citizen wa.s little short of falsehood — 
AVhy omit to acknowledge that the seaman who was hung was a native of London, 
an<l had not been two days in our country, a deserter from a friendly shij) claiming the 
rightsof hospitality, before he was knowingly entered on board the Chesapeake ? — 
VV'hy suppress the fact that the other tivo seamen, born slaves, instead of citizens, de- 
serted from an American shi|i, Capt. Crafts, ^vhose affidavit the Government possess, 
an<l voluntarily entered into tlie British service! This gi-oss attempt to renew old 
misrepresentations, though it does not surprise us, ought to make the people ex- 
tremely cautious of receiving the declarations of men who are capable of making 
them. 

A .second instance I woidd cite of this spirit of misrepresentation evident in Mi: 
SniJtli's letter, is the reason he assigns for not considering the apolog) sent by Mr. 
Jackson to him sufficient — An apologv in which the British niini.ster declares that 
he had no intention of injuring the feelings of the American (iovernment — Mr. 
Smith says that this could not be considered as an apology, because Mr. Jackson 
*' had before demanded his passports." Every man knows (hat the detnand of pass- 
ports by a minister puts an end to all negotiation ; but the passports here intended are 
passports fo ^i/jM/m? counti-j-, and such it was intended the Aeo/;/e should consider 
Mr. Jackson s demand — But in truth, he only demande<l a saleconduct, a protection 
against violence, and even this is objected to him as a crime — Was he in no dan- 
ger ? Who will answer for this ? Will those who excited the people against him 
respond ? Will the patronsof the IntelI5gencer,who are the officers oj our Governnjcnt 
say, there was no danger ? Did they not entreat, did they not even threaten the 
people with the mild penalties of the law if they should give way to their " natural 
indignation, and insult Mr. Jackson's person ?" 'There is another instance of misrep- 
resentation in tliis pan of Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Pinkney ; he chooses to consid- 
er Mr. Jackson as having complained against the American i)resses — This*Avas a 
uierc man of straw which .Mr. Smith erected in order to shew the people how dex- 
terouslj he could demolish him— Mr. Jackson did not complain of the licentious? 
abuse of the press, hut he adduced tliat abuse as a reason why his person might not 
l>e safe, and it tvus a good one. 



NOTE II. 

SINCE the pul tication of the foregoing essavs, the despatches from our minister iu 
London, Mr. Pinkney, relative to the agreement with Mr. Erskine, have been called 
for and published — These con'&rm m evei-y point the remarks which we had before 
made ou this subject— It appears by these publications that the proposals made 
through Mr. Erskine were the result of what Mr. Canning understood to be the 
propositions of our own government. That these propositions, before they were 
sent w ere stated to Mr. Pinkney, and that that minister so far from giving Mr. Can- 
lung reason to believe that they would not be acceptable, from his own letters it ap- 
])ears he rather favoured the same opinions— One point is clearly established, and 
supports Mr. Erskine's statement in his explanatorv letter, that 'Mr. Madison had 
declared that our Government " would take side with Great Britain if she should 

repeal her orders in council and France should refuse to repeal her decrees" Thi; 

Mr. Erskine also explicitly states.— Mr. Caiming put the smallest and narrowest pos- 
sible construction upon this declaration, tliat it only extended to our enforcing our 
-\on-Intercourse with France. 

One other important point is apparent from this newly pubUshed correspondence 
tromourown mmister in London.— That our Government were informed, prior to 
the arrival ol Mr. Jackson, that neither the article respecting the colonial trade, 
nor that respecting the permission of the Briti.sh navy to enforce our laws, would be 
insisted upon. That the agreement with Mr. Erski'ne was not rej.cted on cither of 



54 

tliesfe g^'outidf — but thattlie only point of im\)orta!ice was the failure of any stipula- 
tion to keep ill force our Noii-Iiitcrcourse with France. 

That it was perceived, when Mr. Erskiue's agreement was rejected, that our law 
interdicting the intercourse with Frahce was to e.xpire in June, and there was no 
stipulationthat it should be renewed — It seems then the 07ily objection to that agree- 
ment was the neglect on our part to stipulate that we would enforce our Nou-lntcr- 
conrse with France, and that the two other ai'ticles of the conditions prescribed to . 
Mr. Erskine were withdrawn. 

What then can we say not only to the honor hut the honesty of a Cabinet Avho 
were in jjossession of these positive declarations of the British minister long before 
;Mr. Jackson's arrival, and would still persist that Great Britain still insisted on these 
oftcusi\e conditions which they had withdrawn before Mr. Jackson's mission, and 
which Mr. Jackson as positively disclaimed lia\ing any authority to urge ? As to the 
enlv condition, on which thej insisted, that we should resist the French decrees, it 
was the same which Mr. Jefferson says he explicitly auOiorized Mr. Pinkuey toagi-ce 
to, and which is perfectly reasonable in itself. 



NOTE III. 

IX Number VIT. of our remarks we demonstrated the distinction between the con- 
duct of President Washington in the case of Genet, and the unjustifiable proceedings 
of Mr. Madison in relation to Mr. Jackson — and we stated that it would appear 
that the same party who were now so ready to dismiss the British Minister, at that 
time, upheld the insolent Minister of Fi-ancc, and denied the/wwer of the President 
to dismiss a Foreign Minister. 

That this subject may be fully luidei'stood, I shall compare the cases of the conduct 
of French JVIinisters, the forbearance of former administrations, the defence of these 
Ministers by Mr. Madison's friends, with the pretended insult of Mr. Jackson, and 
the high mettled sensibility of the present Administration — 

In a case of a French privateer which tlie Government ordered to be stopped, 
jMr. Genet declared he would " appeal from the President to the people for their 
direct interference." This was certified by the Chief Justice of the United States, 
and one of our senators — Tliese high officers of our own country were abused 
and vilified, and Mr. Genet, a foreign Minister, was declared by Mr. Madison's polit- 
ical frtends to be more deserving of credit. The French Minister tlien addressed a 
letter to the President which was instantly published in the publick papers, by Genet 
himself, dated August 13, 1793, from which I make the following extract. 

"To you alone have I declared that the Federal Government, ixv from manifesting 
any regard for our generous conduct toward this country, for the advantages which 
we were offering toher commerce, were sacrificing our interests to those of our 
enemies. To ijou have I represented that this conduct (of the American Govern- 
ment) did not appear to correspond with the r/ew* q/'^/ic Peo/^/e." 

Here was a direct appeal to the people, and an impudent distinction set up between 
the views of that people and of their rulers. But Mr. Madison's friends in the Chron- 
icle of the same day thus excuse and justify this conduct; " evei" publick minister is .\ 
entitled to decency and respect while he pursues a line of conduct consistent with 
the duties of his office — whether the Minister of France has experienced this gen- '| 
erosity, let the publications decide," and alluding to this offensive letter it is added. « 
" Wliat proceeding could have been more frank and proper than for him (Mr. j 
Genet) to apply to the President, whom he is" said to have insulted, for a vindication " 
of his conduct ? The address of Mr. Genet, while it bespeaks the franhness of a 1 
Republican, carries in it a decency as it respects the honour and dignity of the Gov- | 
ernment of the United States." — Again speaking of the same act, " was it extraordi- . 
narv that a minister of a foreign country should conduct himself 7WO»'w/^ on such an 
occasion ? But if Genet did sav that he would appeal ironxthc President to the People, 
what is there so criminal in it ? The people would not suddenly destroy the Presi- ; 
dent or injure liis official dignity." Sec Chronicle Dec. 18, 1793. j 

This was the language of all Mr. Madison's party upon the occasion of Mr. Genet's 
outrageous insults, palpable, gross and unquestionable insidts to Gen. Washington — | 
Fhese are the men who now "^call upon us to whet our resentments to the keenest I 
edge against Mr. Jackson for pretended insinuations which no man can discover— These '■ 
:!i-e the men who with affected delicacy after inflaming our passions urge us not to 
oocome Cannibals, and not to feast ourselves on the mangled limbs of the offeuding 
vniuister — 



55 

Ouriiig the same tempcs'aions perio(i, tempestuous hot-aii^e such meii as Mr. .T<r- 
fersoii and Mr. Madison had, "a language official antl Inngiiage confidenlial," because 
such kind of men openly or covertly joined the banners of a foreign minister against 
our own government. Antoine Charbonet Do plaine. Consul of France at Boston, 
eiilered with a military force a vessel witliin our waters, and with like force 
retained tlie possession w her against Samuel Uradford, Esq. then acting under the 
authoirty of the United States. 

For this illegfd act the exe<(riatur of this/)i/?mr OfTicer, Mr. Duplainc w.-is revoke;! 
— Genet denied the President's /lovoer to revoke it, and addressed a letter to our Er- 
ecH<he through the news paj)er ttliicli was then puldished under Mr. Jett'erson's 
patronage, declaring that lie had cxaoiined the Constitution of the United'Statcs, and 
that he was salisficd that the I'resideiit was vested with 7to such aiit/ioviti/ — One can- 
not credit the evidence of the records of these times, that a foreign minister should 
have had the impudence to question the powers of our oiiii Chief Magistrate under 
our o-um (Constitution — But this extraordinary fact can not only be i)roved, but a 
nundjer tA' ahk- ivrilers, some of wIktui I dare say Mr. Madison well knows, appeared 
in support of the Fiench Minister, and either suggesting the idea to him, or borrow- 
ing it from him, contended throuffhoiU all the democratic presses that the President 
had no power to dismiss even a consul, much less a pubKck minister — We would 
here just emuiire of Mr. Civilian Smith, whether any amendme::! has been made 
\n x}.\\% part of our Constitution ~ 



NOTE IV. 

Wli suggested in the foregoing stiletures that Mr. Erskine ^^ as induced by our 
administrat^in to withdraw luajjrelimintni/ conditions under the erroneous impression 
made upon his mind by our mmister, that it was not in Mr. jMadison''s poiuer by the 
constitution to make any agreement which should bind Congress. 

This construction was not only foolish but contrary to past interpretation — If it were 
true, it would follow that the treaty making power is vested in both houses instead 
of the president and senate — Foreign nations never could safely treat with us this 
might suit a shuffling administration, but the honor and interests of the nation would 
Lc sacrificed — Everyone knows that in the case of Jay's treaty tiie contrary doc- 
trine was settled, and Mr. JeRcrson was guilty of perfidy in this offer which lie de- 
clares he made to Great Britain in the summer of 1808, " that if Great Britain 
would repeal her orders in council and France should refuse to repeal hers, we 
would continue to resist France" if he supposed he had no right to hind Congress — 
In short can any honest man doubt that the President and" senate have a right to 
make and ratify a treaty by which a stipulation should be made which would require 
the concurrence of both branches to carry it into execution ? — 

We are now autliorized from a source, the lorrectnessot which the administration 
will r.ot dispute, to state, " that Mr. Erskine was persuaded not to insist on the prc- 
liminary coriditions from what we consider a mistaken view of Mr. Madison's au- 
thority — but that he was led to believe that the only objection on tliis head was to 
the delivery of a formal note agreeing to those prelinunaries — that his agreement 
was- however provisional and was founded on an expectation, and nmlerstajiding of 
wliat the course of measures Congress would pursue, wotild be." 

" That although he thott|^that it would be impossible for Mf. Madison to stipii- 
late as a preliminary condition, that the United States would place themselves in 
actual hostility with such powers as might execute decrees in violation of neutral 
rights, yet Mr. Erskine hasdeclared in writing that he had the most positive rea- 
sons for believing that such con.sequences would follow." 

It is added by Mr. Erskine, " that his government had an undoubted right to disa- 
vo^o his agreement, and had done every thing which became an honourable Nation 
to prevent any evil consequences to the Citizens of this country." 

How far these hopes and expectations liave been realized, the expectation which 
]Mr. Erskine before stated to Mr. Canning that we would take side with Great-Britaiu 
— that we would proceed to hostility against France, let the records of the .Turn- 
session of Congress decide — At that session it was not known that Mr. Erskine's 
ai-inigement had been disavowed, and we have there a good sample of Mr. IVIadison's 
notions of snot] faith- 



39 






•**o< 








<iS 9^ 



^^ • o « •' 















.^^•v 
^ ^ 















"^/'■^''•\f° 




•n-o< 




•^oV* 









'^-..'^ 



* A 







•^- ^v , . , , 























^q,. *:^T^\o- 



•. "> 






















" ^oV^ 



^"-^^^ ^., 

















^■^ t 






























>$^-^ 



?> / 






^^^^-T^ 



?fwEftf%W^|ND% 






G rt^yfli e. PA' 






Vflle,P4 




0^ ^b 










^q. ^:^T** .,0^ ■>. '% j^-* .^^ ^- 







